The Epistles To The Ephesians and To The Colossians T. K. Abbott

This
to
It
is
a digital copy of a
the world's
book
that
was preserved
for generations
on
library shelves before
it
was
carefully scanned
by Google
as part of a project
make
books discoverable online.
has survived long enough for the copyright to expire and the book to enter the public domain.
to copyright or
whose
legal copyright
term has expired. Whether a book
is
in the public
A public domain book is one that was never subject domain may vary country to country. Public domain books
-
are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture
and knowledge
that's often difficult to discover.

this file
Marks, notations and other marginalia present in the original volume will appear in
publisher to a library and finally to you.
a reminder of this book's long journey
from the
Usage guidelines
Google
is
proud
to partner with libraries to digitize public
public and
we
are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this
prevent abuse by commercial parties,
domain materials and make them widely accessible. Public domain books belong to the work is expensive, so in order to keep providing this resource, we have taken steps to including placing technical restrictions on automated querying.
We
also ask that you:
+ Make non-commercial use of the files

personal, non-commercial purposes.
We
designed Google
Book Search
for use
by
individuals,
and
we
request that you use these
files for
+ Refrain from automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort to Google's system: If you are conducting research on machine translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the use of public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help. + Maintain
attribution
additional materials through
The Google "watermark" you see on each file is essential Google Book Search. Please do not remove it.
for informing people about this project
and helping them find
+ Keep
it
legal
because
we
believe a
Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for ensuring that what you book is in the public domain for users in the United States, that the work is
are doing
is legal.
Do
not assume that just

for users in other
specific use of
also in the public
domain
countries.
Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we can't offer guidance on whether any any specific book is allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Google Book Search means it can be used anywhere in the world. Copyright infringement liability can be quite severe.
in
any manner
About Google Book Search

Google's mission
is to
organize the world's information and to
discover the world's books while helping authors and publishers reach
at
make it universally accessible and useful. Google Book Search helps readers new audiences. You can search through the full text of this book on the web
http //books google com/|

: . .
International Critical
mi
tfrt
<f
tt)t
ommfntarf
Oft <m>
frig Scripture* of
Xcid fcstomtnts
The
Ret.
CHARLES AUGUSTUS BRIGGS,

Tk*0tcr%
D.D,
Fdmmtd Retfnmm Prefesr 0/ Bibticmi

Unit* ThemUgicmi Seminary,
New
Verm;
The
Rev.
SAMUEL ROLLES DRIVER.

Rev.
D.D.
Megim Prefeoer mf Hekrem, Ox/erd;
THE
ALFRED PLUMMER,
Umwrufy
D.Dl
rqf
CoiUgt* Dmrkmrnu
ffjft
International
on
tt)e
Cnfical
t\)t
Cgmmtntat;
(Plft ottft
$olg 0cripttrrtg of
IStw fortomtnte.
EDITORS' PREFACE.
There
written
are
now
British
before the
public
many Commentaries,
and American divines, of a popular or homiletical character. The Cambridge Bible for Schools; the Handbooks for Bible Classes and Private Students, The Speaker's Commentary, The Popular Commentary (Schaff), The Expositor's Bible, and other similar series, have their' special place and importance. But they do not enter into* the field of Critical Biblical scholarship occupied by such series of Commentaries as the Kurzgefasstes exegetischer Handbuch sum A. T.; De Wette's Kurzgefasstes exegetischef Handbuch sum N. T; Meyer's Kritisch-exegetischer Kom-' mentor; Keil and Delitzsch's Biblischer Commentar uber das A. T; Lange's Theologisch-homiletisches Bibelwerk; Nowack's Handkommentar sum A. T. ; Holtzmann's Handkommentar
by
'
turn
N.
in
T.
Several of these have been translated, edited,

for the English-
and
some cases enlarged and adapted,

;
speaking public
others are in process of translation.

series
But
no corresponding
by
British
or American divines
has hitherto been* produced.
The way has been prepared

Cheyne,
;
by
special
Commentaries by
Ellicott,
Kalisch,
Lightfoot, Ferowne, Westcott, and others
and the time has
come,
in the
it
when
is
practicable
judgment of the projectors of this enterprise, to combine British and American

production of a
critical,
scholars
in
the
comprehensive
editors' preface
Commentary
ship,
that will be abreast of

its
modern
biblical scholar-
and
in
a measure lead
van.
Messrs. Charles Scribner's Sons of
New
York, and Messrs.
T.
&
T. Clark of Edinburgh, propose to publish such a
series of
Commentaries on the Old and
New
Testaments,
under the editorship of Prof. C. A. Briggs, D.D., in America, and of Prof. S. R. Driver, D.D., for the Old Testament, and
the Rev.
in
Alfred Plummer, D.D.

Britain.
will
for the
New
Testament,
Great
The Commentaries
fessional,
bias.
be international and inter-conecclesiastical

critical
and
will
be free from polemical and
They
will
be based upon a thorough
study of
the original texts of the Bible, and upon critical methods of

interpretation.
They are designed
chiefly for students

a
and
clergymen, and will be written in a compact style.
Each
book
still
be preceded by an Introduction, stating the results of criticism upon it, and discussing impartially the questions
will
remaining open.
The
details of criticism will
appear
in their
proper place in the body of the Commentary.
Each
section of the Text will be
introduced with a paraphrase,
or
summary of
contents.
Technical details of textual and
philological criticism will, as

ibatter of
rule,
;
a more general character ment the exegetical note* will be arranged, as

possible, so as to
be kept distinct from and in the Old Testafar
as
be serviceable to students not acquainted

of Interpretation of the
in
with Hebrew.
will
The History
<jf
Books
be dealt with, when necessary,

Historical
the Introductions,
with critical notices

the subject
the most important literature of
and Archaeological
questions,
as
well as questions of Biblical Theology, are included in the
plan of the Commentaries, but not Practical or Homiletical

Exegesis.
The Volumes
will constitute
a uniform series
THE INTERNATIONAL
CRITICAL
COIIENTIRI
Thi
following eminent
Scholars are engaged
upon the
Volumes named below:
THE OLD TESTAMENT.

The Rev. T. K. Chbynb, D.D.,
Interpretation of
Holy
Oriel Professor of the Scripture, University of Oxford.
The
Leviticus.
Rev. A. R. S. Kbnnbdt, D.D., Professor of Hebrew, University of Edinburgh.
J. F.
Stunning, M.A., Fellow of Wadham College, Oxford, and the late Rev. H. A. White, M.A., Ftf. low of New College, Oxford.
Numbers,
Deuteronomy.
Joshua.
G.
Buchanan Gray, M.A.,

Mansfield College, Oxford.
Lecturer in
Hebrew*
The Rev.
S. R. Driver, D.D., Regius Professor of Hebrew, Oxford. [Now Ready.
The rct# George Adam Smith, D.D., The Rev. George Moore, D. D.,
The Rev. H.
cal
Professor of
Hebrew, Free Church College, Glasgow. Judges*

Professor of Hebrew, Andover Theological Seminary, Andover, Mass.
[Now
Samuel.
Kings.
P.
Ready.
Smith, D.D., late Professor of BibliHistory, Amherst College, Mass. [Now Ready.
The
Rev. Francis Brown, D.D., Professor of Hebrew and Cognate Languages, Union Theological Seminary, New York City.
Chronicles.
The
Rev. Edward L. Curtis, D.D., Professor of Hebrew, Yale University, New Haven, Conn.
Kara and Nehemiab,

Psalms.
The Rev.
W. Batten,
Ph.D., Professor of Hebrew,
P. E. Divinity School, Philadelphia,
The Rev. Charles A. Briggs, D.D., Edward Rob.

inson Professor of Biblical Theology, Theological Seminary, New York.
Union
Proverbs.
The Rev.
C. H. Toy, D.D., Professor of Hebrew, Harvard University, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
[Now
Job.
Ready.
The Rev.
Driver, D.D., Regius Professor of S. Hebrew, Oxford,

ft.
Isaiah.
The Rev. A.
of
B. Davidson, D.D., LL.D., Professor Hebrew, Free Church College, Edinburgh.
Jeremiah,
The Rev. A.
fessor of
F. Kirkpatrick, D.D., Regius ProHebrew, Cambridge, England.

P. Peters, Ph.D., late Professor of
Daniel
The Rev. John

City.
Hebrew, P. E. Divinity School, Philadelphia, now Rector of St. Michael's Church, New York
Minor Prophets. W. R. Harper, Ph.D., LLD., President of the

University of Chicago, Illinois,
THE BTERIATIOIAL CRITICAL COHEITAEI-Contlnued.
THE NEW TESTAMENT.

St Matthew. St Mark. St
Luke.
The Rev. Willoughby

The Rev. .
ment
Allen, M.A., Fellow of
Exeter College, Oxford

TestaP. Gould, D.D., Professor of Literature, P. . Divinity School, Philadelphia.
New
{Now Ready.
The
Rev.
versity
Alfred Plummer, D.D., Master of Uni{Now Ready. College, Durham.
Harmony of
the Gospels,
Acts.
The Rev. William Sanday, D.D., Lady Margaret Professor of Divinity, Oxford, and the Rev. Willoughby
C. Allen, M.A., Fellow of Exeter College, Oxford.
The Rev. Frederick H. Chase, D.D., Fellow

Christ's College, Cambridge.
of
Romans.
The Rev. William Sanday, D.D., Lady Margaret

Professor of Divinity and Canon of Christ Church, Oxford, and the Rev. A. C. Hbadlam, M.A., Fel{Now Ready. low of All Souls' College, Oxford.
Corinthians.
The Rev. Arch. Robertson, D.D., Principal of King's

College,
London.
Professor of
Galatians.
The Rev. Ernest D. Burton, D.D.,

The Rev.
New
Testament Literature, University of Chicago.
Bphetiant
and Colotsians.
Philippians
T. K. Abbott, B.D., D.Lit., formerly Professor of Biblical Greek, Trinity College, Dublin.
{Now
The Rev. Marvin R. Vincent, D.D.,
Biblical
Ready.
and Philemon.
Literature,
Professor of Union Theological Seminary,
New York City.

The
Pastoral
Epistles.
College,
{Now
Ready.
The Rev. Walter Lock, D.D., Warden

and
Dean Ireland,
of Keble Professor of Exegesis,
Oxford.
Hebrews.
St.
The
Rev. A. Naisme, M.A., Professor of Hebrew in King's College, London.
James.
The
The
Rev. James H. Ropes, A.B., Instructor of Testament Criticism in Harvard University.
New
Peter and Jude.
Rev.
Charles Bigg, D.D., Regius
Professor of
Ecclesiastical History
and Canon of Christ Church,
Oxford.
{Now
Ready.
The
Epistles
The
of John.
Revelation.
Rev. S. D. F. S almond, D.D., Principal and Professor of Systematic Theology, Free Church College, Aberdeen.
Professor of
Biblical
The Rev. Robert H. Charles, D.D.,
Greek in the University of Dublin.
Other engagements will be announced shortly.
THE EPISTLES TO THE EPHESIANS AND TO THE COLOSSIANS

T. K.
ABBOTT,
B.D., D.Litt.
The International
Critical
Commentary
CRITICAL AND EXEGETICAL
COMMENTARY
ON THB
EPISTLES TO THE EPHESIANS
AND TO THE COLOSSIANS

BT
Rev.
T. K.
ABBOTT,
B.D., D.LiTT.
FORMERLY PROFESSOR *OF BIBLICAL CREEK, MOW OF HEBR1W

TRINITY COLLEGE, DUBLIN
NEW YORK
CHARLES SCRIBNER'S SONS
1902
&
Tit Wgktt #/ ThmslcMm and rf Rtprotoctbn
an
Rttuvtd.
PREFACE
The
aim
following
Commentary
is
primarily philological.
Its
is
to ascertain with as great precision as possible the
actual
meaning of the
writer's
language.
The Com-
mentaries which have been regularly consulted are those
of Chrysostom and Theodore of Mopsuestia, amongst the

ancients
;
and amongst the moderns, Alford, Barry,

Ellicott,
De
Wette, Eadie,
Meyer (W. Schmidt), Moule, von

;
Soden, and the Speaker's

Stier,
also for Ephesians, Harless,

for
and Macpherson; and
Colossians, Lightfoot
is
The Commentary
acute
of von Soden, though concise,
very
and
independent
title, is
Mr.
Moule's
also,
although
bearing a modest
of great value.
Other writers
use has been
have been occasionally consulted.
Much
made
of Fritzsche's occasional notes in his various com-
mentaries, especially in
connexion with the
illustration
of the language of the Epistles from classical and late
Greek authors.
looked.
Wetstein, of course, has not been over-
The
text
adopted
is
that of the Revisers, except
where otherwise stated.

T. K.
I)
ABBOTT.
CONTENTS.
INTRODUCTION TO THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS
f
I.
i-xlv
i i
To what Readers Written On the reading V 'E^foy

Not
Ephesus Hypothesis of a circular
written to
m
vi
letter
f 2. Genuineness of the Epistle
ix
3.
External evidence Internal evidence Objections from the language Objections from the line of thought Paley on the internal evidence Relation to the Epistle to the Colossians First Epistle of Peter Epistle to the Hebrews
ix
adii
f f
6.
7.
8.
Apocalypse Gospel of St. John Time and Place of Writing Vocabulary of the Epistle Contents
.... ... .... .... ....

.
.
xiv
xix
xx
xxiii
xxiv
xxvi
xxviii
xxviii
xxix
xxxi
xxxii
9. Literature
xxxv
la
On some Readings peculiar to one or two MSS. On the maxim " The more difficult reading is
be preferred w
Abbreviations
xl
to
xlv
xlvi
INTRODUCTION
f f
I.
TO THE EPISTLE TO THE

xlviMxv
xlvii
COLOSSIANS
The Church at Colossae The Colossian heresy
Genuineness Holtzmann's restoration of the supposed original Alleged un-Pauline vocabulary Alleged Gnostic colouring
xlix
1
li
lii
a.
....
liv
viii
CONTENTS
WAGM
f 3. Place
and Date of Writing
lix
4. Relation to other N.T. Writings 5. Vocabulary of the Epistle

6. Contents of the Epistle
7.
Literature
COMMENTARY
Special Notes
:
EPHESIANS
TO THE ON THE ........
ib.
ib.
lx
lxii
EPISTLE
I-191
II
15, 174
On dwokvrpoov On pwrrfifHQ* On the angelic hierarchy On Wjcfo <f>wrfi &pyfjs On rair*ivo<f>pocrvii

33
45
105 .110
On'Mtsaith*
On
sacrifice
......
147
COMMENTARY ON THE EPISTLE TO THE

Special Notes
COLOSSIANS On wpw&roKog wdtnjt matus

:
193-308
.
215
On <rroi\(ia rov Kfopov On dviKbvadfKyof riff &PX&** *>rX On the Epistle " from Laodicea"
Text of the spurious " Epistle to the Laodiceans "
247 257 304 308
INDEX TO THE NOTES

1.
2.
Subjects and Names Greek Words
3.
Latin
Words
309 313 315
INTRODUCTION.
TO WHAT READERS WAS THE EPISTLE ADDRESSED?
I.
This question cannot be
treated apart from that of the genuineness of hr 'E^lcry in L i. AfSS. All extant MS. authority, with three exceptions, is in favour of the words. The three exceptions are K B 67*. In K they are added by a later hand (if). In B they are also added by a corrector (B 3), although Hug was of opinion that the correction was by the first hand. In 67 they were written by the original scribe, but are expunged by the corrector. Possibly this correction is not independent of B. Lightfoot observes that a reading in St Paul's Epistles supported by K B 67 s almost always represents the original text In addition to these, however, we have the express testimony of Basil that the words were absent from the most ancient, or His words are: rofc rather all the ancient, MSS. in his day. oV bnyvwrtwq, *E^trlons hrurrtWwv, s yytfoimt rjvvfjwois r$ oVraf afaofc l&aC&riw ivofuwrcv, tivdhr rots dytot? row o&n koX wurrok Xpurry *Iiprov* ovrw yip irai ol rpb f/pSiv wafioSAitaun *ai i}/ufc hr rok vaXoioct rwv fortypdfaav cvpiyjca/tcy (Adv. Eunom. it 19). The hypothesis that he is referring, not to h> ftyfo-y, but either How strange it would be to rob or to o&rtv, is quite untenable. Xp. 1, that he should go on to quote the words al vurrok which bad no relation to die interpretation in question, and omit the intervening 'EjUcrf, the absence of which was no doubt what gave rise to it ! The off ytp must surely refer to the whole quotation as he gives it Moreover, he distinguishes the MSS. from ol w(A ^/uiv, by which he doubtless meant Origen, who omitted the words. Besides, his proof from this passage (against Eunomius), that Christ may be called 6 &v, would have no foundation if he had read fr 'E^foy after ofay. 1
8m
1 It ho been id that Bull's statement is not confirmed. The objection is doubly fcflacknh His statements* to what he had himself seen does not need
11
THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS
All the Versions have the words, but it must be Versions. borne in mind that we have no MSS. of any of these as old as
KB.
Fathers, etc. Origen's commentary is quoted in Cramer's Catena as follows Qpiycny* c fart, Iri fwy<av *E<c<riW cvoopcv KtCfitvov, to "rots ayfas toU oSoi*" irat {^rov/xcv cf firj iran&icci (*.6. is redundant) vyHXTftci/ACPOv to " to cLytotv row o&r* w t/ bvyarcu 017/101:
vy" opa oSv ci 4*17 Zmctp 4V Tfl *Eo8y oVo/ia <f>rj<nv lavrov 1 MoKTCt TO <5v, OVTUC ol /ICrlgOVTCC TOV OTTOS, yiVoVTOl oVrcf, iroAov/Mvoi otovci Ik tou /a^ cTkou cfe to drat " l(t\{(aro yap w ^770-lv d afco? IlavXos "Tva, ra oVra KaTapyTfcry" fccte ra /iiy 6Vra icT.X. As Tot? dytoi? rots occurs with Ik and the name of the place in other Epistles (2 Cor., PhiL ; cf. Rom. L 7), it is clear that what Origen refers to as used of die Ephesians only is rote oftw without hr Tfyivy. Tertullian informs us. that Marcion gave the Epistle the title
XpTJfJUOiT(ti>V
o&w
"ad Laodicenos" (Adv. Marc. v. 17) : "Ecclesiae quidem veritate epistolam istam ad Ephesios habemus emissam, non ad Laodicenos, sed Marcion ei titulum aliquando interpolare (i.e. falsify) 1 gestiit, quasi et in isto diligentissimus explorator ; nihil autem de titulis inM terest, cum ad omnes apostolus scripserit, dum ad quosdam. Compare ibid. 1 9 " praetereo hie et de aha epistola, quam nos ad Ephesios praescriptum (i.e. superscribed) habemus, haeretici vero ad Laodicenos." It is clear from this that Marcion had not the words iv But it is also inferred with great probability that *Ety<ry in his text Tertullian himself had them not For he does not charge Marcion with falsifying the text but the title, and he vindicates the title "ad Ephesios " by an appeal to the " Veritas ecclesiae," not to the actual words in the text, which would have been conclusive. Moreover, how strange the remark, " nihil autem de titulis interest," etc, if he " had lr 'E^c'cnp in the text of the apostle It is clear that " titulus here means the superscription, not the address in the text Lightfoot points out that there are indications in the earlier Latin commentators that in the copies they used the word " Ephesi," if not absent, was in a different position, which would betray its later introduction. Thus in the middle of the fourth century, Victorinus Afer writes: "Sed haec cum dicit 'Sanctis qui sunt fidelibus Ephesi,' quid adjungitur? 'In Christo Jesu ,n
!
(Mai. Script.
Vett.
Nova
Coll. iiL p. 87).
Ambrosiaster, in his Commentary, ignores "Ephesi 19 : "Non solum fidelibus scribit, sed et Sanctis : ut tunc vere fideles sint, si fuerint sancrJ in Christo Jesu."
confirmation, while as to the fact that the most ancient copies in his day did not contain the words, he is fully supported 1 " Interpolare M in Latin writes means usually to furbish np old articles so a to make them look new,
1]
TO WHAT READERS ADDRESSED
iii
Non omnibus Ephesiis, fidelibus. Omnes sancti

etc.
Sedulius Scotus (eighth or ninth century) writes: "Sanctis. sed his qui credunt in Christo. Et
fideles sunt,
non omnes
fideles sancti,
Qui sunt
Christo," etc. the text is of

i
remarkable. "Sanctis qui at the order, Sedulius, or some earlier writer
Plures fideles sunt, sed non in The omission of " Ephesi " in the quotations from no importance ; but the position of " qui sunt " is It would seem as if some transcriber, finding sunt et fidelibus in Christo Jesu," and stumbling transposed "qui sunt" into the position in which
in Christo Jesu.
whom
he
copies, appears to
have
:
found them.
doubtless referring to Origen when he says {in lac.) {i.e. with more refinement) quam necesse est, putant ex eo quod Moysi dictum sit c Haec dices filiis Israel : qui est misit me/ etiam eos qui Ephesi sunt sancti et fideles, essentiae vocabulo nuncupates. . . . Alii vero simpliciter non ad eos, qui sint, sed qui Ephesi sancti et fideles sint, scriptum arbitrantur." This is obscurely expressed, and it is not clear whether he means But as we know that he had to refer to a difference of reading. read Origen's commentary, he can hardly have been ignorant of the fact that the interpretation he quotes implied the omission of evUtyco-u, and the reader will observe that the word is "scriptum," not " scriptam," as some commentators have quoted it If this is taken strictly it must refer to the reading. When we turn to the Epistle itself we find its whole tone and character out of keeping with the traditional designation. St Paul had spent about three years at Ephesus "ceasing not to warn every one day and night with tears " (Acts xx. 31). On his last journey to Jerusalem he sent for the elders of Ephesus to meet him at Miletus. His address to them (Acts xx. 1 8 sqq.) is full of affectionate remembrance of his labours amongst them, and of earnest warnings. The parting is described in touching words 11 They fell on his neck and kissed him, sorrowing most of all for the words which he spake, that they should see his face no more." There was no Church with which his relations were more close, nay, so close and affectionate, or in connexion with which he had such sacred and affecting memories. We might expect a letter written to Ephesus to be full of personal reminiscences, and allusions to his labours amongst them ; instead of which we have a composition more like a treatise than a letter, and so absolutely destitute of local or personal colouring that it might have been written to a Church which St Paul had never even visited. We need not attach much importance to the absence of personal greetings. There are no special salutations in the Epp. to the Corinthians and to the Philippians, for example, perhaps because, as Lightfoot says : "Where all alike are known to us, it becomes
Jerome
is
11
Quidam
curiosius
'
'
iv

if
is
irksome,
Epistles
k.t.A.,
;
But there
not invidious, to select any for special salutation." not even a general friendly greeting as in those there is nothing but the impersonal tlprpni tow d&cAôis,
vL 23. But in addition to the general greeting in Phil., for example, &<nrdo-axrOe irdvra ayiov . . . dcnraloirai v/xas ol avv
d8cA.<ot, K.T.X., that Epistle abounds in personal reminisEven the Epistle to cences, to which there is no parallel here. the Colossians, whom St Paul had never seen, betrays a more lively personal interest It is impossible to explain this on the supposition that the Epistle was addressed to die Ephesian Church, so loving to the
ifiol
and so beloved. But we may go farther than this, for there are expressions in the Epistle which seem impossible to reconcile with the supposition
apostle
that
your
addressed to that Church. Ch. i. 15, "Having heard of etc., may perhaps be explained, though not very naturally, as referring to the period since his departure from them. Not so the following iii. 2, " For this cause, I Paul, the prisoner
it is
faith,"
of Christ Jesus in behalf of you Gentiles, if indeed ye have heard of (or 'were instructed in') the dispensation of the grace of God which was given me to you-ward"; iv. 21, 22, "But ye did not so learn Christ, if indeed ye heard of Him, and were taught in
Him,"
etc.
Dr. Hort thinks the usual reply to the argument from the two latter passages true and sufficient, namely, that clyc "is not infrequently used with a rhetorical or appealing force where no real doubt is meant to be expressed," and St Paul could not express any real doubt in either case about any Church of Proconsular Asia, any more than about the Ephesian Church. Let it be granted that clyc does not imply the existence of a doubt, it certainly (as an intensified "if") implies that doubt is not inconceivable. It cannot mean more than " I am sure," " I do not doubt," " I know," " I am persuaded." But this is not the way in which a man expresses himself about a matter of his own experipreacher ence, or in which he has himself been the agent occupying a friend's pulpit may say "I know," or "if indeed ye have been taught," but not when addressing those whom he has himself taught Dr. Hort in confirmation of his remark about the appealing force of ciyc refers to Ellicott's note, which is a notable instance of petitio principiu Having said that ciye " does not in itself imply the rectitude of the assumption made," as Hermann's Canon implies ("efye usurpatur de re quae jure sumpta creditur "), but that this must be gathered from the context, he proceeds : " In the present case there could be no real doubt ; ' neque enim ignorare quod hie dicitur (iii a) poterant Ephesii quibus Paulus ipse evangeUum plusquam
1]
biennio praedicaverat,' Estius; comp. ch. iv. si; s Cor. v. 3; Col i. 23. No argument, then, can be fairly deduced from these words against the inscription of this Ep. to the Ephesians." That is to say, if cfyc implied doubt, the Epistle could not be addressed to the Ephesians ; but it was so addressed, therefore yc does not imply doubt, and therefore is not inconsistent with such an address. The three passages referred to in illustration are singularly unsuitable for the purpose. Ch. iv. 21 belongs to the very In 2 Cor. v. 3, cfyc #cot cVSvo-a'/tcvoi ov yvfivol Epistle in question. cv/M0iprofic0a, and in CoL L 23, ctyc cVi/ickctc rjj -t'<rrci, fcr.A., it is the future that is spoken of, and the particle has its usual sense, "if, as I assume." Lightfoot, indeed (on GaL iii. 4), expresses the opinion that in the N.T. ctyc is even less affirmative than cfrrcp. Eph. iii. 4 also (whether we adopt Hort's view that draytvoctkovtc? means " reading the O.T. Scriptures " or not) seems to imply that the author was not well known to his readers. The Ephesians had not now first to learn what St Paul's knowledge of the mystery was. In the early Church the Epistle was universally regarded as addressed to the Ephesians. It is so referred to in the Muratorian Canon ; by Irenaeus (Haer. L 3. 1, 4 ; i. 8. 4 ; v. 2. 36) ; by Tertullian (quoted above); by Clement of Alexandria {Strom. iv. 65) ; and by Origen, who, as we saw above, had not cV ltycrq> in his text (Comment in /oc, and Contra Celsum, iii. 20). There is one important exception to this general belief, namely, Marcion, who, as above mentioned, held the Epistle to be addressed to the Laodiceans. This fact has been generally put aside as of no importance, it being supposed that this was a mere critical conjecture of Marcion (as Tertullian assumes), and probably suggested by CoL iv. 16. But considering the antiquity of Marcion, who was of earlier date than any of the Catholic writers cited, we are hardly justified in treating his evidence so lightly, seeing that he could have no theological motive for changing the title. Even if his " ad Laodicenos " was only a critical conjecture, this would justify the inference that the destination of the Epistle was at that time to some extent an open question. But it is unlikely that he should have been led to adopt this title merely by the fact that mention is made elsewhere of an Epistle (not to, but) from Laodicea. There is nothing in the Epistle itself to suggest Laodicea. It is, then, not improbable that he had seen a copy with cV AaoSucctV in the text Passing by this, however, for the present, we have the following v facts to account for First, the early absence of cV E<^c'o-<p. As Lightfoot puts it: "We have no direct evidence that a single Greek manuscript during this period (second and third centuries) contained the words in question. The recent manuscripts to
:
Vi
gl
which Basil refers in the latter half of the fourth century, are the earliest of which this can be distinctly affirmed" (Biblical Essays,
Secondly, the early and universal recognition in the to the Ephesians. Writers who hold lv *E<^c'<r<p to have been an integral part of the original text suppose the words to have been omitted for critical reasons, namely, because they seemed not to agree with the character of the Epistle. This theory, to be plausible, would require the facts to be reversed, i.e. that the words should be omitted by the later not the earlier authorities, and that the opinion of the early Church should be vacillating. In fact, it explains the unanimity of early opinion by supposing that lv 'E<f>rtp was read without question, and explains the early omission of the words by supposing that opinion was not unanimous. Apart from this, the theory postulates a critical study of the relations between the apostle and the Churches which it would be
p.
381).
Church of the Epistle as written
a complete anachronism to ascribe to that early age. Much later, indeed, we find Theodore of Mopsuestia led by dxoiWs in L 15 to regard the Epistle as written by St. Paul before he had seen the " Numquam profecto dixisset se auditu de illis cognosEphesians. centem gratiarum pro illis facere actionem, si eos alicubi vel vidisset, vel ad notitiam ejus ilia ratione venire potuissent." So also Severianus and Oecumenius. But it did not occur to Theodore or the others to question the correctness of the text. An accidental omission of the words is out of the question.
The
only hypothesis that agrees with the facts
is
that the Epistle
was in some sense an encyclical or circular letter. This seems to have been first suggested in a definite form by Ussher (Ann. V. et N. Test a.d. 64) " Ubi notandum, in antiquis nonnullis codicibus (ut ex Basilii libro iL adversus Eunomium, et Hieronymi in hunc Apostoli locum commentario, apparet) generatim inscriptam fuisse hanc epistolam, tois dyi'ots tols oiai koL ttiotois lv Xptoru* 'Iiycov, vel
:
(ut in litterarum encyclicarum descriptione fieri solebat) Sanctis qui sunt et fidelibus in Christo Jesu, ac si Ephesum primo, . . ut praecipuam, Asiae metropoiim missa ea fuisset ; transmittenda inde ad reliquas (intersertis singularum nominibus) ejusdem provinciae ecclesias ad quarum aliquot, quas Paulus ipse nunquam viderat, ilia ipsius verba potissimum spect iverint." There are two forms of this hypothesis. The first (agreeing with Ussher's view) supposes that a blank was originally left after reus owrtv, which would be filled in with the names of the respective
.
:
which the copies were intended, while in the Church copies would be circulated with a vacant space, in which case, of course, in the copies made from these the blank would be disregarded. Or we might suppose, with Hort, that there was originally only one copy sent by the hand of Tychicus,
for
Churches
at large
some
1]
vii
the blank being filled orally when the Epistle was read in each place, and the name so supplied being naturally written in the copy or copies which would be made for preservation there. The objection most strongly urged against this view is that there is no trace of copies with any other name in the place of *E^flnp in the text, and that it is highly improbable that none such should have been preserved. A little consideration will show that no weight is to be attached to this argument The Epistle " from Laodicea" was either identical with the present Epistle or distinct from it In the latter case, it has wholly perished, not a single copy having been preserved even to the time of Marcion. In the former case, only the copies bearing other names than that of Ephesus disappeared. Is not this quite natural? When copies were in demand, where would they be sought for but in the metropolitan city and commercial centre of Ephesus ? No interest would Why, then, should it be thought attach to any particular address. much more probable that all copies should have been allowed to perish than that only those with names of minor importance should fail to be multiplied ? Indeed, the fact itself is not certain, for it is not improbable that a transcript from the Laodicean copy was in Marcion 's hands. In any case, we have a dose parallel in the fact that the ancient copies which omitted cv 'E^c<r? had already before Basil's day been superseded by those which inserted the words, and although K B remain (being on vellum), no succeeding copyists have a trace of the reading until we come to the late corrector of 67. It must be admitted that this plan of leaving blanks savours more of modem than of ancient manner, and resembles the formality of a legal document more than the natural simplicity of St Paul Indeed, we have examples in 2 Cor. i. 1 and GaL i. 2 of the form of address which he would be likely to adopt in an encyclical letter. Besides, any hypothesis which makes Ephesus the chief of the Churches addressed, is open, though in a less degree, to the objections alleged above against the traditional
designation.
A second form of the hypothesis supposes the sentence to be complete without anything corresponding to hr *E<f><np. Origen's view of the meaning of the passage when these words are not read has been quoted above, viz. " to the saints who are." This view has been recently espoused by Dr. Milligan (EncycL Brit, art " Ephesians "), who translates: "To the saints existing and faithful in Christ Jesus." But the passages to which he refers
in justification of this are
They
ib.
are
Col.
by no means
:
sufficient for the purpose.
.
.
ii.
3, iv
<S
uri irdvTts 01 $rjaavpoi

iiL I,
arr6Kpv<f>oi
10, #cai for* Iv afrrw ireTrXrjpijyfiivot
08 6 Xourros lortv
fcip TOV 0COV Ka07//tVO9.
viu
In these the predicate is completed by hr <, cV avr<jJ, o5, and so the passages supply no parallel to die supposed absolute use of toU own here as " those existing." Besides, rat irurroU comes in very awkwardly and weakly after such an epithet Bengel, again, " Sanctis et fidelibus qui sunt in omnibus iis locis, quo interprets Tychicus cum hac epistola venit," so that roU o5o-iv "qui praesto sunt," comparing Acts xiii. i, *ara -rip otaav cKirAipr/ai', and Rom. % xiiL i, al 8c ova-ou i(owrtcu. But in the former case cV \vrtox^ had just preceded, so that only foci has to be supplied; in the latter the verb simply means "to be in existence." Not to dwell on the untenable suggestion that to?? olaiv should be taken with cLyiW ("the saints who are really such"), there remains the perfectly grammatical construction, "the saints who are also faithful " (see note in loc). The difficulty of the construction is actually diminished by the absence of cV 'E^c'cnp. The Epistle, then, is best regarded as addressed, not to a Church, but to the Gentile converts in Laodicea, Hierapolis, and Colossae, and elsewhere in Phrygia and the neighbourhood of that province. This is the view adopted by Reiche, Ewald, and (independently) by Prof. Milligan (who, however, supposes the Epistle addressed only to the Gentile converts of Laodicea and Colossae). It meets most of the difficulties. It explains the absence of local references combined with the local limitation implied in vi. 22. It also escapes the difficulty of supposing a blank space in i. 1. Further, it explains the remarkable expression, Col. iv. 16, "the Epistle from Laodicea." That the Epistle referred to was not written to Laodicea appears highly probable from the fact that a salutation is sent through Colossae to the Laodiceans, which would be inexplicable if they were receiving by the same messenger a letter addressed to themselves; and the expression "from Laodicea" agrees with this, since Tychicus would reach Laodicea first, so that the Colossians would receive the letter from thence. Moreover, the hypothesis explains the remarkable fact that the Epistle contains no allusion to doctrinal Yet that errors such as had taken so great a hold in Colossae. such errors extended at least to Laodicea is not only probable, but is confirmed by the apostle's direction that the Epistle to Colossae should be read in Laodicea also. There is no difficulty in understanding how the title " to the Ephesians " would come to be attached to the Epistle, since it was from Ephesus that copies would reach the Christian world generally. parallel case is the title of the Epistle to the Hebrews, ?rp6? "E/fyxuW, which, though of doubtful appropriateness, was never questioned. Once accepted as addressed to the Ephesians, the analogy of other Epistles in which roU owriv is followed by the name of a place would naturally suggest the insertion of cV 'E<f*<ry.
:
; :
2]
OF THE GENUINENESS OF THE EPISTLE
ix
The hypothesis that the Epistle is a " circular " letter has been adopted (with various modifications) by a very great number of scholars, including Bengel, Neander, Harless, Oishausen, Reuss, Arch. Robertson, EUicott, Lightfoot, Hort, B. Weiss, WoldSchmidt, Milligan.
| a.
OF THE GENUINENESS OF THE EPISTLE.
The earliest express reference to the External Evidence, Epistle as St Paul's is that of Irenaeus ; but inasmuch as, if not genuine, it must be much later than St Paul, evidence of acquaintance with it on the part of early writers is important When we add to this the fact that it professes to be St Paul's, we are fairly justified in saying that evidence of its reception is begin then with evidence of its genuineness. Clement of Rome, c 64, 6 &cAca/to'os rov Kvpiov *lrjcrovv Xpurrbv #cai rjpbas 6V avrov cis Xaov irepiowriov. Compare Eph. i. 4, 5, KaOort i$X4(aro rjfias iv avr<j> . . . irpoopiaas rjfias . . . Sta *Lprov Xpurrov. Still closer is C 46, tj ovgt ha 0cov Ixo/xcv ko! ha XpKTTOV; KaX tv VTCV/AflL TY/? ^(^HTOS TO IkûOcV l<f> 1/|ia? Kol fJUa kXtjctis iv XpurrQ; compare Eph. iv. 4-6. Again, c. 36, fytipxPrprav And C. 38, xnroraxrfjfitov ol 6<f>0aXpol Trjs Kap&ias; cf. Eph. L 18. crfoOio hcaoTOS Tip ir\rj<riov avrov; cf. Eph. v. 21.
We
The part of the DidachS called the following (Did. iv. 10, 1 1, also worked
ovic
Two Ways contains up by Barnabas, xix.
the
7)
&rtracis SovXta cov
t}
wai&tcrKj) rot? irrl
iv
irtKpla, crov j
jcvptots v/iiov
vi. 9, 5.
and
to servants : rvwif eov ev alo-xyvy

is
rov avrov 0cw ikirttowriv, vfuis 8c ol oovXoc \nroTayr}o'cr$ rots

teal
<f>6ft<p.
Compare Eph.
The
coincidence
in substance rather than in words,
but
it
is
best accounted for
by supposing a knowledge of our
Epistle.
Ignatius,
fjyiao'fifvov,
.
Ep. ad Eph.
.
C. 12, HauXov <rvfifivcrrai (&rrc), rov $s cv irdcrQ briorokjj fivtffiovVi vfxwv iv Xpiorv
Ii^rov.
Many writers (including Hefele, in loc, Alford, Harless, and, less decidedly, Westcott and Robertson) render this " in all his Epistle," viz. to you, or " in every part of his Epistle." But
this is untenable.
For, in the
first
place,
it is
ungrammatical
parallel.
*lo-parj\ 9
certainly
no example has been produced which is quite Hefele adduces irao-a *Icpoo-oAv/xa, Matt ii. 3 and was
;
Other supposed 26; but these are proper names. examined by Lightfoot, in he. Two have been relied on by later writers, viz. Acts xvii. 26, cVi wavro? irpoawrov But neither are rfc yijs, and Aristot Eth. Nic. i. 1 3. 7, irav aupa. these analogous. There is only one irpwrwrrov rrjs yfjs, hence this term is used (not, indeed, with vav) without the article in the
xi.
Rom.
parallels
are
Z
Sept (Gen.
even with

irp.
iv. 14, vi. 7, xi. 8, It is easy to understand, then,
irdxnp rfc
it
how
should
come
y5=Luke xxL 35). to be so used
mv preceding.
sight vav <rto/xa in Aristotle, /.&, seems to present a closer parallel. The passage runs : 8ci tov woXitikov c8&$a\fiovs 6 epairciWTa, *ai ira? <ra>/ia ; ue.
first
At
he that heals the eyes must know the whole body. But crfi/ia in the abstract sense, i.e. as meaning, not this or that individual body, but the body as opposed to the soul, is used by Aristotle without the article, just as ifrvxn k ^ so used (see, for example, Etk Nic. L 8. 2 ; 6. 12, etc.). In this particular instance the omission of the article was, in fact, necessary to precision ; for vav to cruifm might mean the body of him whose eyes were to be healed, whereas what is intended is the human body generally. Since, therefore, vav <rS>fm here does not mean the whole individual body, it furnishes no parallel to the alleged meaning of irao-p cVioroAfl, and we are compelled to abide by the rendering " in every Epistle." But, in the second place, the proposed rendering gives a wholly unsuitable sense. The fact of St Paul devoting a letter to the Ephesians would deserve mention, but to what purpose to say,
you he mentions you"? We do not speak man to himself, nor did the Greeks so use But even if this were possible, it would be, as Lighttunqiiovmiv. foot says, "singularly unmeaning, if not untrue," of the present Epistle. Alford, indeed, thinks the expression fully justified, and quotes Pearson, who says: "Tota enim Epistola ad Ephesios scripta, ipsos Ephesios, eorumque honorem et curam, maxime spectat, et summe honoriflcam eorum memoriam ad posteros transmittit In aliis epistolis apostolus eos ad quos scribit saepe acriter objurgat aut parce laudat. Hie omnibus modis perpetuo All this if said of the Ephesians in a se Ephesiis applicat," etc letter addressed to others might be called /ivrjfwyevttv, although this would be a strangely weak word to use. Does not " acriter objurgare " involve fiyrjfiovViv as much as " laudare " ? But the peculiarity of the Epistle is that nothing is mentioned or even alluded to which is personal to the Ephesians. Kiene {Stud. u. Krit. 1869, p. 286) understands by wdarQ hrurrokjj "an entire letter," but without attempting to show the possibility of this rendering. But can we say that St Paul Allowing for a mentions the Ephesians "in every letter"? Ephesus and the natural hyperbole we may answer, Yes.
"in
his
whole
letter to
of making mention of a
Christians there are referred to either alone or with others in Rom. 1 Cor. xv. 32, xvi. 8, 19 ; 2 Cor. i. 8 sq. ; and 1 and 2 Tim. ; The longer recension of Ignatius has 05 TravTorc h? reus Snjo-co-iv avrov fivT}fiovvi vfjuuv. The Armenian Version reads /n;/iOFvo>, which would be true to fact, for in five out of the six other
xvL 5
2]

does mention the Ephesians.
xi
Epistles, Ignatius
is insufficient
But the authority
Accepting, then, the usual reading and the grammatical renderwe cannot infer from the words that Ignatius knew the Epistle as addressed to the Ephesians. Rather they would suggest the opposite conclusion. For, when Ignatius desired to remind his readers of St Paul's regard for them, it would be strange that he should only refer to the mention of them in other Epistles, and not at all to that which had been specially addressed to them. The word (rvppvarai has been thought to have been suggested by Eph. L 9, iii. 3, 4, 9, etc ; but this is very precarious, for St Paul uses no expression there which would suggest Ignatius' word, and (rvfifiwm^ is used by Origen (In Jes. Naue Horn. 7, ii. p. 413), "ipse (Paulus) enim est symmystes Christi," and by Hippolytus (in Dan. p. 1 74, Lagarde). The question as to Ignatius' knowledge and reception of the Epistle is quite a different one. In the address of his Epistle he has several expressions which may have been suggested by the early verses of our Epistle 17} euAoy^/xcVfl, irkrjpuyfixiTi,, irpovpurfitrQ irpo aluvwv c?vot . . . is S6(av, K\tkyfivrjv, cv OeXrjfjuarL tov irarpfc. More certain is cap. i., fujxrjTal ovrcs tov 0coO, borrowed apparently from Eph. v. 1, and Polyc. 5, ayairay -ras crvfiPiovs a>s 6 Kvpto? ti/v IkkXtjciclv, a reminiscence of Eph. v. 29. In the following ch. vi. the reference to the Christian s iravoirXio was probably suggested by Eph. vi 1 1, although the parts of the armour are differently Also Ign. Eph* c. 9, ws ovtcs XiOoi vaov irarpds, lynn/iacrassigned. jUyoi cis ohcoSoprfv oS irarpo? (Eph. ii. 20-22). Contemporaneous with Ignatius is the Epistle of Polycarp to the Philippians. It contains two quotations from the present Epistle in cap. i., \dpiTi core ata-ttxrfitvoi, ovk i( Zpyw, from Eph. ii* Si 8, 9 ; and & 12 (of which the Greek is lost), "ut his scripturis dictum est, irascimini et nolite peccare et9 sot non occidat super iracundiam vestram^ from Eph. iv. 26. Some commentators, indeed, suppose that Ignatius here is, independently of our Epistle, making the same combination of two O.T. texts, or that both adopt a combination made by some earlier writer. That is to say, they regard " let not the sun go down on your wrath " as a quotation from Deut xxiv. 13, 15, verses which have nothing in common with this but the reference to the sun going down, for what they deal with is the hire of a poor man and the pledge taken from the poor. That two writers should independently connect the words " in Deut with those in Ps. iv., changing in the former " his hire
ing,
:
into "your anger/' is beyond the bounds of probability. As to the difficulty which is found in Polycarp citing the N.T. as Scripture, perhaps the explanation may be that, recognising the first sentence as a quotation from the O.T., he hastily concluded
xii
that the second was so also. For in the context immediately preceding he confesses that his acquaintance with the Scriptures was not equal to that of the Philippians. This is at least more probable than an accidental coincidence.
Hennas, Mand.
iii.,
has, aX-qOttav
aydwa
teal iraxra
AXtjOeta he
rov orrd/xaTo? <rov iKiropcvevOu, doubtless from Eph. iv. 25, 29. little after we have, jirfik Xxnrqv hraytiv to> irvtvfuiTi rep <rfiy$
iXrjOtl;
tv o-u/uL,
A
icai
<
ib. ver.
30.
Again, Sim.
and
17, /ua
mms aMav lycFcro, seem to be reminiscences
ix. 13, fcrovrai ets hr wvevfua.
cu
of Eph.
iv. 4, 5.
Valentinians also quoted the Epistle, iiL 4-18, as ypd<f>y (Hipp. Philos. vL 34). By the close of the second century the Epistle was universally received as St Paul's. Irenaeus, adv. Haer. v. 2. 3, has, koBuk 6
fuucapun Havkos <farj<nv, Iv icrfjLCv rov cro>/xaro$, itc rrjs
ttj
The
irpos *E^<rious lirioToAfl* 0V1
ftcA-Ty
<rap#co9
avrov
teal
Ik twv 6otv avrov
(Eph.
v. 30).
Also i
8. 5,
he
similarly quotes
Eph.
v. 13.
Clem.
Alex. Strom, iv. 65, having quoted 1 Cor. xL 3 and GaL v. 16 sqq., with <f>y)<riv 6 dirooroAo?, adds, S16 kcu iv rjj irpos *E<f><rio\K ypd<f>i' Also vTroTcujo-o/Acvot &Wrj\oi<s iy <f>6p<# 0cov, icrA., Eph. v. 21-25. Patd. L 18, 6 dirooToXo? hrurrtWuv irpos KopivOtovs <f>r)(rlv (2 Cor.
xL 2)
ara<freorara
& *E</>ccrtois ypdtfmiv

Eph.
iv.
Aeyw /xc^pt Karay

and Marcion
n/o-cofuv ot toktcs, ict.X.,
13-15.
Tertullian
have already been quoted.
From this evidence it is all but certain that the Epistle already existed about 95 a.d. (Clement), quite certain that it existed about 1 10 a.d. (Ignatius, Polycarp).
Not to be overlooked as an item of evidence of the genuineness of the Epistle is the mention, in CoL iv. 16, of an Epistle " from Laodicea." This has been already referred to for a different
learn from it that St Paul wrote at or about the purpose. same time, besides the Epistles to Philemon and to the Colossians, an Epistle of a more or less encyclical character, not addressed to the Laodiceans, else it would be called the Epistle " to Laodicea," or " to the Laodiceans," and, for a similar reason, not addressed by name to any particular Church or Churches. It must also be considered highly probable that it was conveyed by the same messenger, Tychicus, for it was not every day that St Paul would have the opportunity of a disciple travelling from Rome (or even from Caesarea) to Laodicea. It is hardly credible that a Church which carefully preserved and copied the unimportant private letter to Philemon, should allow this important encyclical to be lost. There was a further guarantee of its preservation in the fact that Now, here we have this did not depend on one single Church. an Epistle which satisfies these conditions ; it is in some sort at least an encyclical letter ; according to the best evidence, it was
We
; :
8]
xiii
not addressed to a particular Church, and indirectly it purports to have been written about the same time and conveyed by the same messenger, as the Epp. to the Colossians and to Philemon. This would amount to nothing if there were reason to suspect a forgery suggested by Col. iv. 16. But this is entirely out of the question, tor there is not the slightest indication in the Epistle which could lead an ordinary reader to that identification. So effectually, indeed, was it concealed, that with the exception of the heretic Marcion, it does not seem to have occurred to any ancient writer and on what ground Marcion judged that the Epistle was to the Laodiceans we do not know. We do know, however, that his adoption of that title did not lead others to think of CoL iv. 16, and even his own disciples seem not to have followed him. 1 Whatever probability belongs to this identification (and the reasons alleged against it have little weight), goes directly to confirm the genuineness of the Epistle, and must in all fairness be taken into account As the Canon of Marcion must have been drawn up before the middle of the second century, there is
evidence of the general reception of the Epistle as St Paul's at
that period.
of the ablest opponents of the genuineness admit the and reception of the Epistle. Ewald assigned it to about 75-80 a.d. Scholten also to 80. Holtzmann, Mangold, and others to about 100. The late date 140, assigned by some of the earlier critics, is irreconcilable with the evidence of its early recognition. Internal Evidence. Objections. The genuineness of the Epistle appears to have been first questioned by Schleiermacher (who suggested that Tychicus was commissioned to write it) and Usteri but the first to examine the internal evidence in detail was De His conclusion was that it is a verbose amplification Wette. ("wortreiche Erweiterung ") of the Epistle to the Colossians, and in style shows a notable falling off from that of St Paul Against the subjective element of this estimate may be placed the judgment of Chrysostom, Erasmus, Grotius, and Coleridge. Chrysostom says : " The Epistle overflows with lofty thoughts and doctrines . . . Things which he scarcely anywhere else utters, he here expounds." wfaXur <r<f>6&pa yifiM tup voq/ufrw & ykp prfiafwv tyleyjd, ravro hravOa SrqkoL Erasmus (although noting the difference in style, etc): "Idem in hac epistola Pauli fervor,
early date of composition
Many
eadem
profunditas,
idem omnino
spiritus
ac pectus,*
He
adds
1 This is Ughtfoot's explanation of the perplexing passage in Epiphanius {Hatrts. xlii). Epiphanius speaks of Maroon as recognising the Ep. to the Eph., and also portions of the so-called Ep. to the laodimms. He blames Marcion for citing Eph. iv. 5, not from Eph., but from the Ep, to the laoriimfHL See Tjghrfoot, Biblical Essay % p, 583.
xiv
"Verum non alibi sermo hyperbatis, anapodotis, aliisque incommoditatibus molestior, sive id interpretis fuit, quo fuit usus in hac, sive sensuum sublimitatem sermonis facultas non est assequnta. Certe stilus tantum dissonat a caeteris Pauli epistolis ut alterius videri possit nisi pectus atque indoles Paulinae mentis hanc prossus " Rerum sublimitatem adaequam verbis illi vindicaret" Grotius sublimioribus quam ulla unquam habuit lingua humana." Coleridge {Table Talk)-. "The Epistle to the Ephesians ... is one of the divinest compositions of man. It embraces every doctrine of Christianity; first, those doctrines peculiar to Christianity, and then those precepts common to it with natural religion." Others have also judged that, as compared with Colossians, it is in system " far deeper, and more recondite, and more exquisite " (Alford). De Wette was answered by Liinemann, Meyer, and others. Some of the critics who followed De Wette went beyond him, rejecting the Ep. to the Colossians also, which he fully accepted, and assigning to both a much later date.' Schwegler and Baur, finding in the Epistle traces of Gnostic and Montanist language and ideas, ascribed both Epistles to the middle of the second century. Similarly Hilgenfeld, who, however, attributed the Epistles The fallacy of these latter speculations has to distinct authors. been shown by Holtzmann, who has devoted an entire volume to the criticism of the two Epistles (Kritik der Epheser und Kolosser:
briefe
auf Grund einer Analyse ihres Verwandtschaftsverhdltnisses, His conclusion is that the writer of the present Leipz. 1872). Epistle had before him a genuine, but much shorter, Epistle to the Colossians, on which he founded his encyclical, and that the same writer subsequently interpolated the Epistle to the Colossians. (This was first suggested by Hitzig, 1870.) Soden (in two articles in the Jahrb.f Prot Theol. 1885, 1887) maintained the genuine-
ness of Col. with the exception of nine verses, and in his Comm. he withdraws this exception, regarding only i. i6, 17 as a gloss. Lastly, the most recent writer on the subject, Julicher (Ein* leitung in das Neue Testament, 1894), will only go so far as to say that our Epistle cannot with certainty be reckoned as St Paul's, while neither can its genuineness be unconditionally denied. Objections from the Language of the Epistle, Let us first notice Holtzmann rethe argument from the language of the Epistle, marks, as favourable to the Pauline authorship, that it contains eighteen words not found elsewhere in the N.T. except in St PauL apa olv occurs eight times in Romans, and besides only in GaL L and 2 Thess. and Eph. each once ; 8i6, a favourite of St Paul, occurs in Eph. five times (not in Col.). But the favourable impression created by this is outweighed by the peculiarities found in the Epistle. It is indeed admitted that the existence of cbra Xcyo/tcva would be no argument against the genuineness, if only
2]
XV
they were not so numerous. There are, in fact, 42 words which are a. A. (in the N.T.), not including aix/xaAwrcveu', which is in a quotation. (Holtzmann reckoned only 37, but Thayer gives 42. 1 ) This number, however, is not greater in proportion than that in admitted Epistles of St. Paul. Romans contains 100 (neglecting quotations); 1 Cor. 108; 2 Cor. 95; Gal. 33; Phil. 41 (Col. has The percentage is, in fact, rather less in our Epistle (see 38). Robertson, Diet, of Bible^ i. 9540, note). It is, indeed, fair in such a comparison to take account of St. Paul's vocabulary rather than Accordingly, Holtzmann notes that that of the N.T. generally. there are here 39 words which, though occurring elsewhere in the N.T., are not found in St Paul (the Pastoral Epp. and Col. are, of course, not counted). In Col. there are 15. Some of these, indeed, are such common words, that it is somewhat surprising that St Paul has not used them elsewhere, such as ayvoia, diraraa), fiwpov, <frp6vri<ns $ vif/os, to which we may add, though not common, But then, each of these occurs only once, owiftxov, evairXayxvos. and hence they cannot be regarded as indications of a different writer. Of the other words that have been noted as peculiar, some belong to the description of the Christian's armour, and for these there would be no obvious place except in connexion with a similar figure ; while others, such as fcara/ma/jo?, irpocKapriprjo-tSy oo-ian^, cannot properly be reckoned as peculiar, since in other Epistles we find KaTaprLQu, Karaprio-is, ^pooTcaprcpciv, ocriW So also, although avoits does not occur elsewhere, avoids rov oro/iaw, vL 19, is parallel to 2 Cor. vi. n, to oto/xo, fjfJav dyc'uyc. Even without making these allowances, there is little difference between this Epistle and that to the Galatians, for example, in this respect The latter Epistle, which is rather shorter, contains, in addition to 32 aira Acyo/Acva, 42 words which, though occurring elsewhere in the N.T., are not found in the other Epistles of St Paul Such calculations are, indeed, futile, except in connexion with words so frequently used as to be characteristic of the writer. More weight is to be given to the principle of the objection, that words are used here to express certain ideas which St Paul is in the habit of expressing differently, and, again, that words used by him are here employed with a different meaning. But when we come to the instances we find them few, and for the most part unimportant. Of the first class, De Wette mentions to. lirovpdvui " for " heaven " (five times) ; ra ix?cvfiari#ca for " spirits ; $tdf3okos twice (elsewhere only in 1 and 2 Tim.), KooyiOKpaYwp, crwrrrjpiov.' Soden adds, as favourite words of the writer, luBoUta (twice), and Sccr/uos (twice). These, with ra irrovpavta and Std/foAo?, he says, it is strange not to find slipping from St Paul's pen elsewhere. As to Sr/uo?f however, it actually occurs in Philemon, and Holtz1 See list at end of the Introduction.
xvi
mann had already pointed out that it was not to be expected except in Epistles written when St. Paul was a prisoner. As to 8ta/?oA.o5, of which much has been made because St Paul elsewhere uses Saravas, if the writer of the Acts, or of the Fourth Gospel, and other N.T. writers, could use Saraya? and SuLftokos indifferently, why might not Paul use the former in his earlier Epistles, and the latter twice in this ? The difference is only that between the Hebrew and the Greek forms, and is analogous to that between ncrpo? and Ki/âs, of which the former is used twice and the latter Again, although ra four times in the Epistle to the Galatians. hrovpdvia (which is not = " the heavens ") is not found elsewhere in St Paul, the adjective occurs with the meaning "heavenly" in Other un-Pauline exi Cor. xv. 40, 48, 49, and in Phil. ii. 10. pressions are found in ra fcA^/xara, a! Scavouu, irpb Karafiok^s icooyAov, ^Kirrtciv as a function of the apostle, 6 apxpjv tjJs ovoxa? rov dcpo?, 6 eos rov Kvpibv rjfjJ^v 'Ii^rov Xpurrov (L 17. 3) ; irvcv/jua. rov voo\ fj ayta IkkXtjo-ul (ver. 27, not, however, in this form); oi
dyiot dirocrroAoi
iv.
#c<u TrpoxfyrjraL,
tare yivaxTKOrrcv, SCSovou rtva rt

;
(i.
2 2,
11); dyalo? 7rpk ti
(iv.
29)
dyairav rhv Kvptov (Paul has Ay.
rov %f6v\ dyaxav ti/v IkkXi^tuxv, of Christ ; els ircuras Tas yevcas tov aluvos rwv altavwv. It is, for the most part, only by their number that these and similar instances can be supposed to carry weight as an objection to the Pauline authorship ; two or three, however, are somewhat striking. On 6 0cds rov Kvpibv rjfi(ovf see the note. It is certainly an unexpected expression, but it is one which no later imitator, holding such lofty views of Christ as are here expressed, would have ventured on without Pauline precedent. It has its parallel in John xx. 17. Again, although the expression 6 Xpiorbs ijydinprc rip iKKkrfo-iav taken by itself sounds peculiar, it is not so when we find that it is suggested by the preceding words, oi aVSpct, dyan-arc ras ywauca? #ca0o>$ teal, icr.A.. The phrase which seems to create the greatest difficulty is tow dy/btf dirooToAoi? teal irpo^^rats. It is said that this, especially when compared with Col. i. 26, is strongly suggestive of a later generation which set the apostles and prophets (of the new dispensation) on a lofty pedestal as objects of veneration. Some of those critics who accept the Epistle as genuine have suggested that we have to do with a gloss (the whole or, at least, the latter half of ver. 5, Reuss ; the word dytbt?, Julicher), or a dislocation of the text (Robertson), dytbt? being the mediate or general (tyavcpMh), Col.), the far. k. wp. the immediate or special (dxcKaAity^) Lachmann and Tregelles put a recipients of the revelation. comma after dytbt?, so that dn\ *. irp. is in apposition with dytbi?. So far as the difficulty is in the writer's application of the term dytbis, it appears to be due very much to the importation into
2]

modern notion of holiness
(see note).
be, the objection to the genuineness
xvii
dytbis of the
may
ifwl
drawn from
However this this word is
deprived of
all force by the words which follow presently in ver. 8, tw iXaxtaroripia iravrw dycW. It is quite incredible that a writer otherwise so successful in assuming the character of St Paul, should here in the same breath forget his part and (as it is thought) exaggerate it The same consideration, in part at least, applies to the other difficulty found in the words, viz. that they
represent the apostles as all recognising the principle of the calling of the Gentiles, a principle which St Paul elsewhere (and here The apostles are spoken of also) claims as specially his gospel collectively also in i Cor. xv. 7 ; and as they had cordially assented to St Paul's teaching as to the admission of the Gentiles (Gal ii. 9), it is quite natural that he should speak of it here as revealed " to the apostles." As examples of Pauline words used in a new sense, are quoted As to the first, there is really no fiwrnqptov, oUovopla, vc/kWipri?. difference between its meaning here and elsewhere in St Paul ; or if the sense in ver. 32 is thought to be different, that is a difference within this Epistle itself, in which the word occurs five times in its oUovofua is found (besides CoL L 25) in 1 Cor. usual sense. ix. 17 of St Pauls own stewardship, while in Eph. it is used of the ordering of the fulness of the times (L 10), or of the grace of God Here, again, so little ground (til 2), or of the mystery, eta (iil 9). is there for assuming any serious difference in meaning, that in the last two passages the meaning "stewardship" (RV. marg.) Again, ircpMnMVw in i- *4 is said to be is perfectly suitable. concrete, whereas in 1 Thess. v. 9, 2 Thess. ii. 14, it is abstract Admitting this (which is questioned), the difference is parallel to that, for example, in the meaning of dvojcaAv^t? in 1 Cor. xiv. 26
andl
7.
In reference to these objections, and some others that have to
be mentioned, it is important to remember that we are not dealing with an anonymous work. There are many points of difference which in such a case might be used with effect against the Pauline authorship, but which put on a different aspect when we consider that the Epistle makes a distinct claim to be the work of St Paul, so that, if not genuine, it is the work of a writer who designed that it should be mistaken for the work of that apostle, and when we add to this the fact that it was received as such from the earliest times. For a writer of such ability as the author, and one so familiar with the writings of St Paul, would take care to avoid, at least, obvious deviations from the style and language of the author whom he is imitating. From this point of view, not only ami Acyrf/icra, but still more the use of new expressions for Pauline ideas, instead of offering an argument against the Pauline author-
xviii

become arguments
against forgery.
If,
[S
ship,
indeed, actual contra-
dictions or inconsistencies could
be shown,
it
would be
different;
but they cannot
There are, it is true, at first sight, differences in the point of view taken in this Epistle and in others of St Paul ; but these have been exaggerated. For example, when in v. i the expression r&va ayairrjrd occurs, Holtzmann remarks that this is elsewhere used by St Paul, not to urge his readers as beloved children to imitate their Father, God, but because they owed their conversion to himself, so that he was himself their father (i Cor. iv. 14, 17, c 2 Tim. L 2). Yet the expression is quite naturally led up to here. "Forgive, for God has forgiven; therefore imitate God, whose children ye are." Addressing those to whom he was a stranger, he could not call on them to imitate himself (1 Cor. iv, 16, xL i), which, moreover, here, where the question is of forgiveness, would be an impossible bathos ; nor could he call them his own children. As to the expression "children of God," we have a parallel in
Rom.
viii.
6,
on
cct/acv rc#cya
0cov.
Again, rj keyofianq dxpo/farrta, fj Xcyofitvrj ttc/xto/xtJ (iL 1 1), taken by themselves, may seem to deny any real significance to circumcision (contrary to Rom. iii. 1 ; PhiL iii. 5 ; CoL iL 11, 13) ; yet a closer consideration will show that it is not so. "Ye who are contemptuously called uncircumcision by those who call themselves the circumcision, a circumcision in the flesh only (note the addition iv <rap*i), as if the mere fleshly circumcision had any spiritual value." Not only does the sense of the whole passage agree with Rom. iL 26-29 (as Holtzmann allows), but the form of expression is natural as coming from the writer who in PhiL iiL 2 uses the strong and scornful word Kararofi^ adding 17/xc?? yap
icrpcv
J}
TTcptro/xiy, oi irveufiari
0coi) Aarpcvovrcs,
*c.t.A.
to which
we
accept Colossians, Col. ii. 1 1. Holtzmann, indeed, thinks that Paul would not say, 17 Xeyofifrrj oKpopvarCa, he being himself one of the Jews who so designated them (Rom. ii. 26, But this corresponds to 27, iiL 30, iv, 9; Gal. iL 7). CoL iii. 11, ovk vi . . . ircpiTOfir} Kol aKpoftvoTioL (C on] pare the
for those
less forcible ovt ircptro/ii/
may add,
who
urx?*h
*.t.A.,
Gal. v. 6,
vi.
15.)
Holtzmann considers
this
way of speaking of circumcision
as
belonging to the general view of the Law taken in this Epistle, as merely typical. It is not spoken of, says v. Soden, as having a religious or moral significance, as ircuoaywyos cfc Xpurrov, or as working jcarapa, but only in its formal character as the sum of ivroXal iv Soyfuurw, its content being left out of view. Compare, on the contrary, Rom. ix. 4 ; Gal. v. 23 (where, however, we have vopos, not o vopos). Its significance consists in its causing a
separation
this is
But and even hostility between Jews and Gentiles. not a greater difference than that between the ideas of a

and a source of
Kardpa,
xix
iraiSayuryfc
which we find within one
epistle, that to the Galatians.
the line of thought in the Epistle. It is said, whole view of the Church as regards the union of Jews and Gentiles is peculiar ; St Paul never represents it as the object or even an object of Christ's work to bring into one Jews and Gentiles (ii. 13-18, 19-22, iii. 5 sqq., iv. 7-16). This leads us further ; we notice that the writer never speaks of local Churches, but only of the (one) Church. This has been supposed to indicate that he wrote at a time when the several local Churches were drawing together in resistance to a common danger, and binding themselves together by a single organisation. But the Church here is not represented as made up of individual Churches, but of individual men; nor is there any mention of external unity or common organisation. Nor is the conception of one " Church," which we find here, quite new. Not to mention passages where St Paul speaks of himself as formerly persecuting " the Church of God" (1 Cor. xv. 9 ; Gal. i. 13 ; PhiL iii. 6), we have in 1 Cor.
Objections
from
further, that the
xiL 28, 0to 6 cos cv rjj iKKXrpriq. irparrov dTTooroXovs, K.T.A. may compare also Acts xx. 28, rrjv IkkXtjo-ulv rov cov rjv ircpicironf-
We
outo, k.t.X.
In CoL we have
(L
18,
1}
iKKkrjcria in
the
is
same
universal
Church
24),
although
it
sense, as the also used of local
(iv. 15, 16). The encyclical character of the present Epistle sufficiently accounts for the predominance of the former view here. There is, however, no inconsistency in this advance upon the earlier conception. It is, indeed, remarkable that in Eph. the thought of the unity of the Church is so dominant that Christ's work is represented as having immediate reference to it rather than to individuals (compare v. 25-27, 29, 32, with GaL ii. 20) ; of this He is the Saviour (ver. 23) ; it is this that He has But it is essential sanctified by His offering of Himself (ver. 26). to observe that all this occurs, not in an exposition of the nature of
Churches
husbands to their reference to His work in relation to individual men That reference comes in would have been entirely irrelevant But the first two passages, it is naturally in i. 7, v. 2, ii. 16 ff. said, appear to be only verbal reminiscences of St PauL It is, however, much easier to conceive St Paul writing as in w. 25-32, than to suppose it the work of another who wishes to be mistaken for him. It is no doubt very remarkable that the whole circle of thought which in St Paul has its centre in the death of Christ, here falls into the background. In i. 15ii. 10, where the resurrection is twice mentioned, and the whole work of redemption dwelt on, the death is not mentioned. So also L n-14, iii 1-21. In
Christ's work, but in illustration of the duties of
wives.
Any
feet,
ally referred to as
with the exception of L 7 (from Col. i. 14), it is only incidenta pattern, and then with remarkable differences
XX
attributed to
from St Paul, that being attributed to Christ which is elsewhere God. (Yet, on the other hand, in i v. 32 it is God in
Christ
who
is
said to forgive, while in Col.
iii.
13
it is
Christ
who
only place in which the death of Christ is dealt with in greater detail is iL 14-16 ; and there the interest is not in the reconciliation of individuals and the forgiveness of their sins, but in this, that the Law, and with it the enmity between Jew and Gentile, are removed. These and other differences that have been pointed out are no doubt striking, but they involve no inconsistencies ; they are only developments of ideas of which the germ is found in St Paul's other writings. The representation of Christ as the Head of the Body, which is the Church, is common to Eph. and Col., and therefore cannot be alleged against the genuineness of the former by any who admit Elsewhere, when St Paul uses the figure of the body, the latter. the whole body is said to be in Christ (Rom. xil 4, 5), or to be Christ (1 Cor. xii. 12), and the head appears only as one member among many (id. 21). But in those cases the point to be illustrated was the mutual relation of the members of the Church, and there is nothing inconsistent in the modification of the figure which
forgives.)
The
we
find in these
Epp.
Again, as to the Person and Office of Christ, we have in both Epp. a notable advance beyond the earlier Epistles, as in Col. i. 16 ff., "in Him were all things created, in the heaven, and upon the earth ... all things have been created through Him, and unto Him; and He is before all things, and in Him all things consist." But we have at least the germ of this in 1 Cor. Kupto? *Iiy<roi5s Xpurros, Si 08 t& irdvra, *cal rjfjucis viii. 6, els SC afrrou. In Eph., however, we have added to this the further thought that things in heaven as well as on earth have part in the reconciliation effected by Him (Eph. L 10) ; and all this is referred to a purpose of the Divine will directed towards Christ Himself from the beginning. Once more, the second coming of Christ has fallen into the background, and does not appear to have a part in bringing about the fulfilment of the promised blessings. Rather does the writer seem to anticipate a series of aiwvcs hrtpxpuwoi. But, as Hort observes, " nothing was more natural than that a change like this should come over St Paul's mind, when year after year passed away, and still there was no sign of the Lord's coming, and when the spread of the faith through the Roman Empire, and the results which it was producing, would give force to all such ways of thinking as are represented by the image of the leaven leavening the lump" (Prolegomena, p. 142). Paiey on the Internal Evidence. Paley in his Horat Paulinac has replied by anticipation to some, at least, of the objections to
8]
xxi
the genuineness of the Epistle, and has added some positive arguments which deserve attention. He remarks that " Whoever writes two letters or two discourses nearly upon the same subject and at no great distance of time, but without any express recollection of what he had written before, will find himself repeating some sentences in the very order of the words in which he had already used them ; but he will more frequently find himself employing some principal terms, with the order inadvertently changed, or with the order disturbed by the intermixture of other words and phrases expressive of ideas rising up at the time; or in many instances repeating, not single words, nor yet whole sentences, but parts and fragments of sentences. Of all these varieties the examination of our two Epistles will furnish plain examples; and I should rely upon this class of instances more than upon the last because, although an impostor might transcribe into a forgery entire sentences and phrases, yet the dislocation of words, the partial recollection of phrases and sentences, the intermixture of new terms and new ideas with terms and ideas before used, which will appear in the examples that follow, and which are the natural properties of writings produced under the circumstances in which these Epistles are represented to have been composed, would not, I think, have occurred to the invention of a forger ; nor, if they had occurred, would they have been so easily executed. This studied variation was a refinement in forgery, which, I believe, did not exist ; or if we can suppose it to have been practised in the instances adduced below, why, it may be asked, was not the same art exercised upon those which we have collected in the preceding class? [viz. Eph. L 7=CoL i. 14; Eph. L io = CoL L 20; Eph. iii. 2 = Col. L 25; Eph. v. 19 = CoL iii. 16; and Eph. vL 22 CoL iv. 8]." Of the second class he specifies Eph. i. 19, ii. 5, which, if we take away the parentheses, leaves a sentence almost the same in terms as CoL iL 12, 13 ; but it is in Eph. twice interrupted by incidental thoughts which St Paul, as his manner was, enlarges upon by the way, and then returns to the thread of his
discourse.
Amongst internal marks of genuineness, Paley specifies the frequent yet seemingly unaffected use of xAovros used metaphorically as an augmentative of the idea to which it happens to be subjoined, a figurative use familiar to St Paul, but occurring in no other writer in the N.T , except once in Jas. iL 5, " Hath not God
this world, rich in faith ? ", where it is manifestly suggested by the antithesis. (It occurs in 1 Tim. vi. 18.) " There is another singularity in St Paul's style which, wherever it is found, may be deemed a badge of authenticity ; because, if it were noticed, it would not, I think, be imitated, inasmuch as it almost always produces embarrassment and interruption in the
chosen the poor of
"
ndi
This singularity is a species of digression which may reasoning. properly, I think (says Paley), be denominated going off at a word. It is turning aside from the subject upon the occurrence of some particular word, forsaking the train of thought then in hand, and entering upon a parenthetic sentence in which that word is the prevailing term." An instance is 2 Cor. ii. 14, at the word oa-fj^ (note w. 15, 16). Another, 2 Cor. iii. i, at imoroXmv, which third is 2 Cor. gives birth to the following sentence, w. 2, 3.
the word koAv/x/ao. The whole allegory, w. 14-18, arises out of the occurrence of this word in v. 13, and in iv. 1 he resumes the proper subject of his discourse almost in the words with which he had left it. In Eph. we have two similar instances, viz. iv. 8-1 1, at the word
Hi.
13, at
av/3r),
and
again, v. 13-15, at
iv.
</>s.
iii.
Again, in Eph.
Tairivo<f>pocrvv7]f
2-4 and Col.
12-15,
we have
xppon/s,
fa
pxiKpoOvfua,
avtxpficvoi
the words dAAiJAov in the
also in both, but in a different connexion answers to <r. Try: TcAcioVipro*; k\^$tjt kv kvl crw/wm to $v crayia Ka0ws kcu iKXrfi-qre iv /uq. i\iri8i; yet fa this similitude found in the midst of sentences otherwise very different Eph. v. 6-8, CoL iii. 6-8, afford, says Paley, a specimen of that partial resemblance which is only to be met with where no imitation fa designed, but where the mind, exercised upon the same subject, fa left to the spontaneous return of such terms and phrases as, having been used before, may happen to present themselves again. The sentiment of both passages is throughout alike half of that sentiment, the denunciation of God's wrath, fa expressed in identical words ; the other half, viz. the admonition to quit their former conversation, in words entirely different. Eph. vi 19, 20, furnishes, according to Paley's very just remark, a coincidence (with the Acts) of that minute and less obvious kind which is of all others the most to be relied upon. It is the coincidence of irpccr/fcvw cv oAvo- with Acts xxviii. 16. From the latter passage we learn that at Rome Paul was allowed to dwell by himself with one soldier that kept him. In such cases it was customary for the prisoner to be bound to the soldier by a single
same order ; Aydmj
crvvSf0710s rfp tlpnrjvrp
chain.
Accordingly, in ver. 20 St Paul says, rrjv aXvciv rwurrjv irpucLfmu be observed that in the parallel passage in CoL the word used is Sco/uu. real prisoner might use either the general words Sco/uu or iv Sccr/xot?, or the specific term. Paley, however, omits to notice the irony of irfxapcvw Iv dA.vcri, to which the choice of " the word is undoubtedly due. an ambassador in chains does not exactly express the force of the original, which is rather "act as an ambassador in chains." As Hort well remarks (p. 156), "the writer has in mind, not the mere general thought of being in
It is to
Am
8]
RELATION TO EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS
mi
bonds, but the visual image of an ambassador standing up to plead and wearing, strangest of contradictions, a iv oW/aoi* would have meant fetter by way of official adornment"
his sovereign's cause,
" in prison."
3.
RELATION TO THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
It is impossible even to glance over these two Epistles without being struck by the many similarities, and even verbal coincidences, between them. On the other hand, the Epistle to the Ephesians differs markedly from its twin Epistle in the absence of controversial matter such as forms so important an element in the other. De Wette, admitting the genuineness of CoL, thought it possible to account for the likeness by supposing that the writer of Eph. borrowed from the other Epistle. He gave a list of parallel passages (Einl. 146a) as follows :
Eph. i-7 i. 10 > i. 15-17 99

99
99
99
i.
i. i.
CoL
99
i.
i.
14. 20.
Eph.
99
iv.
iv. iv.
99
99
i. i.
i.
3*4.
27.
16.
99 99
22 f. 25 f. 29
31
.
.
CoL
99
iii.
ff.
iii.8f.
iii.
99
99 99
99
8, iv.
8.
18 21
iv.
iii.
99 99
99
iv.
99
22 1 ii. 1, 12
i. i.
18
21.
f.
99
9>
v. v.
v.
32 3
iii
12
f.
4
5
99
iii 5. iii 8.
iii.
iii.
99
99
H-5 H-*5
ii. iii.
99
ii.
ii. ii.
i.
13-
99
., 99
99 99
99
5.
99
99 99 99
14.
v.
v.
6
15 19
f.
6.
99
99 99 99
16
z
20.
v ! /5111.
iii.
i.
!!!-3
iii!
99
99
91
i.
i.
24. 25. 26.

23, 2527.
10.
v.
V.
99 99
99
16 f.
18.
99
99
99
V. 21
iii.
iii. iii.
iii.
25
19.
99
99
vi. I vi.
vi.
99
99
8
1
f.
i.
i.
9> 99 99
4
5
ff.
. ,
20, 21.
99
99
99
99
iv.
iv.
99
99
iii.
22
ff.
.
f. f.
.
.
99
iii.
iii.
12 f
vi.
9
18 21
ff.
f.
99 99 99
iv. 1.
iv. 2ff.
iv.
iv.
99
99
14 U
19.
1. 5.
vi.
vi.
iv.
iv.
15
ii.
iii.
7C
99
19
Holtzmann in his Kritik der Epheser- und Kolosser-Bricfc examined the problem with great labour and minuteness. He argued strongly that in some of the parallels, the priority was on the side of Eph. The passages which he selected for detailed examination in support of this content on were, 1st, Eph. L 4 ( = Col. i. 22); 2nd, Eph. i. 6, 7 ( = Col. 13, 14); 3rd, Eph. iii. 3, = Col. L 26, ii. 2); 4th, Eph. iii. 17, 18, iv. 16, ii. 20 ( = 5, 9 (
i.
16 ( = Col. ii. 19) ; 6th, Eph. iv. 1. 23, ii. 2, 7); 5th, Eph. iv. 22-24 ( = Col. iii. 9, 10); and 7 th, Eph. v. 19 ( = Col. iii. 16). (With respect to the last three he seems to have changed his mind before publishing his Einteitung.) His conclusion was that there existed an Epistle to the Colossians by St Paul, which was
CoL
xxiv
taken by the writer of Eph. as the basis of his work, and that the same writer subsequently interpolated the Epistle to the Colossians. He conjectures that this writer was the same who added the final doxology to the Epistle to the Romans. In the introduction to the Epistle to the Colossians will be found a specimen of the result of his analysis of Colossians. The principal, indeed the only value of this part of his work is that it establishes the inadequacy of the more commonly accepted solution of the problem, namely, that Ephesians is simply a forgery based on Colossians. Some critics, however, such as Hausrath, Mangold, Pfleiderer, think that Holtzmann has at least But indicated in what direction the solution is to be looked for. all such attempts are attended with much greater difficulty than the traditional view. There is another difficulty in this theory, and one which, from a literary point of view, is really fatal It is that the words and phrases supposed to be borrowed from Col. are introduced into different contexts, and yet so as to fit in quite naturally with their new surroundings. (See, above, the passages mentioned by
Paley.)
It may be asked, moreover, how is it that a writer so well acquainted with Pauline thought should have confined his borrowings almost exclusively to the Epistle to the Colossians, and that although the most characteristic element of that Epistle, its special polemic against the heretical teachers, seems to have had no interest for him. Indeed, it is strange how he succeeds in steering clear of all allusions to that subject In the author of Col. this would be done unconsciously ; it is not so easy to account for an imitator doing it
4.
RELATION TO THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER.
The parallelisms between these two Epistles are so numerous The that the Epistles may almost be compared throughout After the following comparison is chiefly from Holtzmann.
address they begin thus
1
Pet. l
Oebs
ical
Eph. L
rar^p roO
3.
3.
efi\oyrrrbi 6
tHKoytfrbs 6 Ge6f Kal

4)/jl&v
Kvplov iffxQp'ltjcoO Xpiffrod, 6 dvaycrrfi'

<raj ijfias.
Kvplov
'IijcoQ
war^p roO XpurroO, 6 edXoyi}-
<rat fyxaf.
This commencement, however, is found also in 2 Cor. i. 3. Then follows in each a long passage (1 Pet i. 5-13; Eph. L 5-15) in which the alternation of participles and relative pronouns is the same in both until the transition to the succeeding period
4]
is
RELATION TO THE FIRST EPISTLE OF PETER
XXV
made in the one case by 810, in the other by 8ta rovro. The substance of the passage in i Pet. i. 3-5 corresponds with that of the following passage in Eph. (i. 18-20), the "hope" being emphasised in both, and its object being designated the KXrjpwofila, the connexion with the resurrection of Christ as its ground being the same, and in both the Svro/us cov being put in relation to
the vurris.
1
Pet
il
1
4-6 has much resemblance to Eph.

Prr. iL
wpoffpx6/uwoi
iL
18-22
il
Eph.
4. wpbs
Jffirra
6r
M9of
...
Cn 7d$oi {Orm olxodooUos rwtvfiArucdt.
.
.
5. cat afrdl
lietaBc,
rj> OcpeXltp 20. troucodojiriBirrtt 6rrot dxpoywrialov airroO XpwroO

22.
.
&ta{rroQfxfi*1' T^w1rP0ffayuy1jr. 19. . . . oIkcToi rod GeoO. ^

1 8.
6.
A/0ar AKpcywrtaiav.
'IijcoO, k.t.A.
.
.
avroiKo9ofJLtff$ tit
mroc-
KrfHfpiow
rod GeoO.
1 Pet, however, is here citing Ps. cxviii. 22 and Isa. xxviii. 16, and the former passage may have been in St Paul's mind also. It had been applied by our Lord to Himself (Matt xxi. 42), and Holtzmann thinks the is cited in St Peter's speech, Acts iv. 1 1. citation of Isa. xxviii 16 was suggested to z Pet by the d#cpo-
ywviaiov of Eph.
iL 18,
iii. 18, fro 17/xas irpoa-aydyu T<? <?> reminds us of Eph. avrov cxo/acv rrpf wpoaayury^v wpos rov irarcpa, while the verses immediately following exhibit the ancient explanation of Eph. iv. 8-io. Then follows in 1 Pet a striking parallel to Eph.
Pet
Si*
L 20-22
1
Pet.
iiL
Eph. L
20. iic&Biffew e> <#? afoiti if rota Aroi/paWou. 0Vm 21. inrcpdvot r&arjs dpxfy **l alas kclI ftwrf/tewt . . . 22. *al irrfrra fa-eraler.
22. 5f icriv iw oe($ roO GeoO wopev BtU e/f oipavbw, farorayfrruv afrr$ dyyfKvr jrai iovciGjt kqX
tvwapdvr.
They both
Pet i. 10-12 and Eph. iiL 5, 10 are strikingly parallel contain the thought found here only in the N.T., that the meaning of the prophecies was not clearly known to the prophets themselves, but has first become so to us
Again,
1 1
Pet. L
Eph.
5. t
.
iiL
4yru>pl<r(h)
10. Wfxxprjrai 11.
...
fripau yeveais oi*

rvr
&TKa\v<pdi)
.
.
ipevwurrtt eh rlwa . . . jrcupto e*6*i}Xov to eV afrrcit TVidfia. 12. off &TCKakt4>$T} 8rt oirx iavrois, Injur ft 8it)k6wovv atird, d pvv dvTjyy^Xtj.
on
roif
vpoftjrcut *> Tvetifiari. 10. Zra ywwpicOj) rOr
Here
themselves were
Pet goes beyond Eph. in saying that the prophets made acquainted by revelation with their own
xxvi

(But on v-po^Taic in Eph.
iiL
[4
prophets,
ignorance. see note.)
= New Test
1 Pet L 20 and Eph. iii. 9 correspond in the same reference to the mystery ordained irpo KaTafioXrjs Kovfwv, and hitherto hidden, but now revealed And as in Eph. iiL 10 the wise purpose of God is now made known to angelic powers, so in 1 Pet L 12 they desire to search into these things. These are but a selection from the parallelisms that have been indicated by Holtzmann and others. Some critics have explained them by the supposition that the writer of Eph. borrowed from 1 Pet (Hilgenfeld, Weiss). But, in fact, the latter Epistle has affinities to other Epistles of St Paul, and especially to that to the Romans, with which it has many striking coincidences (see Salmon, Introduction, Lect xxii., and Seufert in Hilgenfeld's Zcitschrift, 1874, p. 3 6 )On the supposition that Eph. is genuine, and that St Paul here borrowed from 1 Pet, we seem obliged to hold (as Weiss does) that in the other parallels the former was also the borrower. "Imagine," says Holtzmann, "the most original of all the N.T. writers, when composing the 12th chap, of his Ep. to the Romans, laboriously gleaning from 1 Pet the exhortations which his own daily experience might have suggested to him, taking xii. 1 from 1 Pet ii. 5 stripped of its symbolic clothing, then xii. 2 borrowing
<nxrx7ipja.T%<rO
from
;
Pet
xii.
z
1
Pet Pet
iv. 10,
ii.
11
taking
i. 14; next in 9 out of 1 Pet
xii.
i.
22
3-8 expanding 10 from ; xii.
17," etc
an incidental suggestion of Holtzmann, has argued at length that Eph. and 1 Pet are by the same author, possibly the same who wrote the third Gospel and the Acts (HilgenfekTs Zeitschrift% 1881, pp. 179, 332). It is not necessary to discuss this theory in detail, since it appears to have gained no adherents. It may suffice to quote Salmon's remark, that the resemblances between 1 Pet. and Eph. are much less numerous and less striking than those between Ephesians and Colossians whereas, in order to establish Seufert's theory, they ought to be very much stronger " For we clearly can more readily recognise resemblances as tokens of common authorship in the case of two documents which purport to come from the same author, and which, from the very earliest times, have been accepted as so coming, than when the case is the reverse." There remains the supposition that 1 Pet borrowed from If the former be not genuine, there is, of course, no Ephesians. difficulty in this supposition, whether Eph. be genuine or not Nor is there any real difficulty (except to those who will insist on putting the two apostles in opposition) in supposing that the Apostle Peter when in Rome should become familiar with the
Seufert, adopting
:
J 5]
RELATION TO
NEW TESTAMENT
WRITINGS
xxvii
Epistle to the Romans, and adopt some of its thoughts and It is difficult, however, to suppose him acquainted with language. Eph. and other Epistles. Salmon suggests another alternative, namely, that while Paul was in Rome, Peter may have arrived there, in which case there would be a good deal of vivd voce intercourse between them, and Paul's discourses to the Christians at Rome may have been heard by Peter. This suggestion appears to have been made also by Schott (Der erste Brief Petri, 1851). 1 Holtzmann's objection to it is singularly weak, viz. first, that according to GaL L 18, ii. 1 sq., 11 sqq., we must regard the personal intercourse between the two apostles as limited to three widely separated moments, and broken off in some bitterness ; and, secondly, that St Peter could not in this way have become The latter remark has been replied to familiar with Rom. xii. xiii. by anticipation ; as to the former, what sort of idea of the two apostles must Holtzmann have, to think that the incident at Antioch must have led to a permanent estrangement between Finally, if 1 Pet was composed by Silvanus under the them direction of the apostle, which is possibly what is meant by v. 12, the use of St Paul's thoughts and language is sufficiently accounted for.
I
5.
RELATION TO OTHER
NEW TESTAMENT WRITINGS

of contact with the Ep. to the e.g. af/xa *<u <rap (elsewhere
xmtpdvui, vrnpavta irdvrtay
icai
Epistle to the Hebrews.

<rap$ koI affta),
Points
Kpavyr),
Hebrews have been noted.

dypvnrciv,
Lexically,
tw
ovpavwv, cis diroXvTpwnv, aitov /xcAAcov, irpo<r<f>opa
OwrCa, ftovkrj
of God,
-rrapprja-Ca
in the sense of spiritual assurance.
There are
also peculiar conceptions common to both Epistles : Eph. L 20, IkoButcv cV Sci'p avrov, Heb. i. 3, viii. 1, x. 12: Eph. i. 7, diroAvr/Kixrtc $c& reft af/iaro?, Heb. ix. 12 : Eph. V. 25, 26, lavrbv irapccWcy vwkp
avnp
tva avrqv ayiacrg, Heb. xiiL 12, x. 10. St. Paul, it is said, does not represent dytaoyxoc as the object of Christ's atoning death, but rather justification. Eph. iii. 12, cv <L fyo/w ttjv irapprjcriav kcu
rrpr TrfXHrayuryrp)
Heb. iv. 1 6, Trpo&tpx&iuBa ftcra vapprjo-ias. The Christology, also, of the two Epp. is the same. Of course, if Eph. is genuine, there is no difficulty in admitting that the writer to the V. Soden, however, argues that the latter Hebrews used it His reason is that 1 Pet is dependent on Epistle is the earlier.
Hebrews, and probably
is
more than doubtful

it is
1
have seen,
than Eph. The former proposition but we need not discuss it, since, as we probably 1 Pet that has used Eph.
earlier
;
He was one who "Peter possessed an eminently sympathetic nature. received impressions easily, and could not without an effort avoid reflecting the tone of the company in which be lived " (Salmon, IntrocL, 7th ed., p. 438).
XXX
vi.
21 compared with CoL iv. 7 and Philemon 13, we may conclude Most comthat these three Epistles were written at the same time.
mentators have supposed that they were written from Rome, but the claims of Caesarea (Acts xxiiL 35, xxiv. 27). The following reasons are adduced in favour of this view by Meyer. First, that it is more likely that the fugitive slave Onesimus would make his way from Colossae to Caesarea than by a long sea voyage to Rome. Wieseler's reply is sufficient, namely, that he would be safer from the pursuit of the fugitivarii in the great city. St. Paul, too, seems to have been under stricter guard at Caesarea, where only "his own" were allowed to attend him (Acts xxiv. 23), than at Rome, where he lived in his own hired house and received all that came to him. As to the circumstances of Onesimus' flight we know nothing. Secondly, if the Epistles were sent from Rome, Tychicus and his
some moderns have advocated
companion Onesimus would have arrived

might therefore expect
that,
at
Ephesus
first,
and we
with Tychicus, Onesimus would be mentioned, in order to ensure him a kindly reception. This argument falls to the ground if the Ep. was not written to Ephesus. Thirdly, he argues from Eph. vi. 21, Iva 8 ctSi/rc koi vîets, that before Tychicus would arrive at Ephesus he would have previously fulfilled to others the commission here mentioned. But this is really to suppose that the readers of the Epistle had previously heard of the message to the Colossians. The meaning of koX
Fourthly, it is argued that in Philem. 22 Paul asks Philemon to prepare him a lodging, and that kcu). This presupposes, says Meyer, that his place of soon (/ta imprisonment was nearer to Colossae than Rome, and, which is the main point, that Paul intended on his expected release to go direct to Phrygia ; whereas from Phil. ii. 24 we see that he intended to proceed to Macedonia after his liberation (not to Spain, as he had at first thought of doing, Rom. xv. 24). And Weiss thinks this decisive. But he might well take Philippi on his way to Colossae, Philippi being on the great high road between Europe and Asia (Lightfoot, Philippians, p. 48 f.). On the other hand, as Mangold observes (Bleek, Einl. p. 507), the desire to visit Rome lay so near the apostle's heart during his imprisonment in Caesarea (Acts xxiii. 11), that he would not think of making a journey thence to Phrygia for which he would order a lodging, even if Phrygia is looked on only as a station on the way to Rome. But the expression in Philem. implies more than a mere passing through. The fact is, however, that the argument treats the request too much in the light of a business arrangement instead of a friendly When St Paul says, "I hope that through your suggestion. prayers I may be granted to you," without even adding "soon," it Had is dear that his hope was not definitely for a speedy release.
vfjuU is quite different (see note).
&
7]
VOCABULARY OF THE EPISTLE
xxn
been so, he would doubtless have alluded to it in the Ep. to the Colossians. Jerome suggests the true explanation, viz. that he spoke " dispensatorie ut dum eum expectat Philemon ad se esse venturum, magis faciat quod rogatus est" As Hort puts it : " It is but a playful way of saying to Philemon, ' Remember that I mean to come and see with my own eyes whether you have really treated your Christian slave as I have been exhorting you ' ; and then giving the thought a serious turn by assuring him that, ' coming is no mere jest, for he does indeed hope some day to be set free through their prayers, and then he will haste to visit
it
them.'"
Another argument has been founded on the absence from CoL of any reference to the earthquakes which visited the cities of the Lycus about this time. Under the year 60 (which includes the last part of the Caesarean imprisonment) Tacitus mentions an earthquake which destroyed Laodicea (Ann. xiv. 27). Four years later Eusebius' Chronicle mentions the destruction of Laodicea, It is not Hierapolis, and Colossae by an earthquake (01. 210).
that these notices refer to the same event, but, even granting that they do, there is good reason to believe that Eusebius is more likely to be right in the date than Tacitus. The latter appears to be in error about the date of another earthquake of this reign (Schiller, Neroy 160, 172, referred to by Hort), whereas Eusebius appears to have followed unusually good authorities about these earthquakes ; for in the case of the great earthquake in the reign of Tiberius, he adds Ephesus to the list of ruined cities mentioned by Tacitus and Pliny ; and a monument at Naples proves his correctness. If Eusebius is right as to the date of the earthquake, it would be later than the Epistle. Or, again, if the earthquakes in question are not the same, there is no evidence that the earlier extended as far as Colossae. Lightfoot, in his essay on the " Order of the Epistles of the Captivity" (Comm. on Philippians\ argues strongly from language and style that the Epistle to the Philippians preceded these three. If so, and if, as is generally believed, that Epistle was written from Rome, we have in this a further proof of the Roman origin of Ephesians and the other two.
certain
7.
VOCABULARY OF THE EPISTLE,
List ofaira kcy6fiva in the Epistle to the Ephesians*

o^cos, aurxpvrqs, aix/iaAon-ciW (but Text.
Avavcou), afoii?,
Rec. in 2 Tim.
iii.
6),
diraAyciv, acroôs,
/?cA.of,
Ifcrpc'û),
&a;(ioTorcpo?,
cvon/9, l(urxvwf iiri&vtiv, ciriâuo-Kciv, Iroifiacria,
cwoia (Text. Rec*
xxxu
has
it in I Cor. vii. 3), c$rpa7rc\ia, o 7jyawr]p.ivo<: (of Christ), 0upe<>9, Karapria-pMy fcar<orcpos, Kkrjpovv, fcA.v8a>i4c(r0<u, K(xrfioKpaT<op9 Kpwfajh #rvj3cta, paKpoxpovios, /ueycfos, /lefloScia, /iccrdroiô^, fuopoAoyta, 7rd\rjt
wapopyicrfioSy 7roA,v7rotKt\of, irpocATrxJctv, irp<xrKapTprj<ri<^ pirn's, <rvpr

/icroôs, ovfLiroXirrfi, (rwap/ioAoycu', crwowcoSo/xciv, owcrai/utos;
Words found elsewhere, but not
in St.
Paul
in St. Paul
diretXi}
following words are found elsewhere in the N.T., but not ayvowt (Acts, 1 Pet), dypuirvciv (Mark, Luke, Heb.), d#cpya>viaio5 (1 Pet), dpôrcpoc, aye/xos, aKtevat (Acts, Heb.), aira?,
:
The
(Acts), cvonrXayx*' ? (l Pet), fjuucpdv, opytco*0cu, bw&rqs (Luke), d<r^v9, TravoirXta (Luke), irdpoiKO? (Acts, I Pet.), 7rcpia>Kvvvcu, irkdros (Apoc.), irotftiyi' ( = pastor, only 1 Pet, which also has &p\LiroLfirjv), iroXtrcia (Acts), crcwrpos, ottZXjos, <rvyK<x$ieLV (Luke, but intrans.), cramjpiov (Luke, Acts), v&op, vTrofcto-ftu, vij/os, ^pay/ids, ^pdnpris (Luke), xaP"w (Luke), xcipomuyrds. Holtzmann adds the following, which occur in the Pastorals, assuming, namely, that they are not genuine: aix/AoAwrciW (2 Tim. Rec.\ aXwns (2 Tim.), dirarav (1 Tim.), dowi'a (Tit, 1 Pet only), 8id/?aAo (1 and 2 Tim. and Tit), cuayycWnfc (Acts, 2 Tim. only), 7rou$La (2 Tim.), lyuty (1 Tim.).
W&r*& common
to the Epistles to the
Ephesians and the Colossians,
but not found elsewhere in N.T,

dptfpwirdpccricos,
a<f>rj,
diroKara\Xdaxriv 9 diraWoTpioxxrOcUy avttvt

c#c
auiprt9, d<0aA./to8ovA.ta, piovv, <rufa>07rotctv, <rv/i/?i/idcci't
Add
the expression
i/a^s.
Words which are common

N.T.
writers.
to Ephesians and the Pauline Epistles {excluding the Pastorals)^ but which are not found in other
&yaO<*>cruvT}y
vii.
Text
Rec., but not in the best texts),

irXcovocnys,
iroirffiOj
&Xrj6cviv9 dveîxvlacrro?, ^vixppnrjyta^ cuvota (1 Cor. cvu&a, 0dAircirt

vpca/fcveii',
irpocrofr-
jcafurrciv,
TreptKCâAata,
/tdciv, p<xraya>y9,
<rov,
wporiOtaOai, viofco-ta, {nrpJ3d\Xuv9 vmpcmrcpur-
S 8.
CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE,
Salutation. Praise to God for the blessings of salvation. were chosen in Christ as the recipients of these blessings before the Creation, and the object of this was that we should be holy and
i.
Ch.
i, 2.
3-8.
We
8]
CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE
nodii
blameless, being admitted to the adoption of sons through Christ, whom we received redemption. 9-11. God hath made known to us His purpose to sum up all things, whether in heaven or on earth, in Christ 12-14. Jews had even in former times been promised the Christ, and had fixed our hopes on Him ; but ye Gentiles have also received the same blessings, and have been sealed with the Holy
in
We
an earnest of the inheritance. 15-19. Therefore having heard of your faith I always thank God for you, and pray that ye may attain the knowledge of the hope to which ye are called, the glory of your inheritance, and the greatness of the power of God, who gives this inheritance. striking example of this power was shown in the 20-23. raising of Christ from the dead, who has now been set above all authorities and powers, by whatever name they may be called, whether earthly or heavenly, whether belonging to this world or to the next To the Church, however, He stands in a closer relation, being the Head to which the Church is related as His Body. further instance of His power is that when we ii. 1-10. were dead through our sins He gave us life and made us partakers of the resurrection of Christ, and of His exaltation. This was not for any merit of our own, but was the undeserved gift of God, who loved us even when we were dead through our sins. But although our salvation was thus not of works but of grace, our new creation
Spirit as
had good works
in
view as
its
result
11-22. Ye Gentiles had formerly no share in the covenants of promise, but were aliens from the citizenship of Israel Now, however, Christ, by His death, has done away with the barrier between you and the true Israel, and has reconciled both to God. So that equally with the Jews, and on the same terms, ye have access to the Father. All alike form part of the one holy temple
in which God dwells. iil 1-9. This truth that the Gentiles are equally with the Jews heirs of the inheritance, members of the body and partakers of the promise, was hidden from former generations, but has now been revealed to the apostles and prophets ; and to me, though unworthy, has been given the special privilege of preaching Christ to the Gentiles, and of making known to all men this mystery. 10-13. Hereby God designs that even the angelic powers
may learn through the Church to know the varied wisdom of God exemplified in His eternal purpose in Christ 14-19. Prayer that they may be given inward spiritual strength ; that Christ may dwell in them through faith ; and that being themselves well grounded in love they may learn to know the love of Christ, although, properly speaking, it surpasses knowledge.
xxxiv
20, 21. Doxology suggested by the thought of the great things which have been prayed for. iv. 1-3. Exhortation to live a life corresponding to their calling,
in lowliness, patience, love,
and
unity.
4-1
1.
Essential unity of the
Church as a
spiritual organism,
acknowledging one Master, into whose name they are all baptized, and all being children of the same Divine Father. Within this unity a diversity of gifts and offices is to be recognised.
inspired
Spirit,
by one
12-16. The object of all is to make the saints perfect in unity of faith and maturity of knowledge, so that they may be secured against the changing winds of false doctrine, and that the whole body, deriving its supply of nourishment from the Head, even Christ, may grow up and be perfected in love. 17-24. Admonition that remembering the blessings of which they have been made partakers, they should put off their former life, their old man, and put on the new man. 25-31. Exhortations against special sins, falsehood, anger, theft, idleness, foul speaking, malice, etc. 3 2 -v. 2. Exhortation to take the love of God in Christ as a pattern for imitation, especially in their forgiveness of one another. 3-14. Special warning against sins of uncleanness. 15-21. More general exhortation to regulate their conduct with wisdom, to make good use of opportunities, and, instead of indulging in riotous pleasure, to express their joy and thankfulness
in spiritual songs.
22-33. Special injunctions to husbands and wives, illustrated relation of Christ to the Church, which is compared to that of the husband to the wife, so that as the Church is subject to Christ, so should the wife be to her husband ; and, on the other hand, as Christ loved the Church even to the point of giving HimThere is, self up for it, so should the husband love his wife. indeed, one important point of difference, namely, that Christ is the Saviour of the Church of which He is the Head. vi. 1-9. Special injunction to children and fathers, slaves and masters ; slaves to remember that they are doing service to Christ, masters that they also have a Master before whom master and slave are alike. 10-12. Exhortation to arm themselves with the whole armour of God in preparation for the conflict with the spiritual powers which are opposed to them. 13-18. Detailed specification of the parts of the spiritual armour. 19, 20. Request for their prayers for himself, that he may have freedom of speech to preach the mystery of the gospel 21-24. Personal commendation of his messenger Tychicus,
by the
and
final benediction.
9]
LITERATURE OF EPISTLE TO THE Ei-HESIANS
xxxv
g.
LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.
here.
Commentaries on the entire New Testament are not noticed For the older works, the lists in the English translation of Meyer, and in M*Clintock and Strong's Cyclopaedia, have been
Sixteenth
consulted.
and Seventeenth
Centuries.
Althofbr (Christ), Animadvcrsiones, etc. Alt 1641. Annotations in V.T. et in Ep. ad Ephesios (auctore incerto). Cantab. 1653; Amst 1703. Battus (Bartholomaeus), Commentarius in Epistolam ad Gryphisw. 161 9. Ephesios. Bayne or Baynes (Paul), Commentary an the Ep. to the Ephesians. Lond 1643. Binemann, Exposition Lond 1581. Bodius or Boyd (Robert), In Ep. ad Ephesios Praelectiones. Lond. 1652. Bucer (Martin), Praelectiones in Ep. ad Ephesios (posthumous ed by Im. Tremellius). Basil, 1562. Bugenhagen QoYl)9 Adnotatt. in Epp. ad Gal. Eph. Phil. Col.
etc.
Basil, 1527.
Calixtus
Cocceius
(G.),
Expositio
litt.
in Epp.
ad Eph.
Col.
etc.
Helmst 1664-66.
(Joh.), S. Apost.
Fault Ep. ad Ephesios cum Comm.
Lugd Bat
1667.
Crocius (Joh.), Comment, in Ep. ad Ephesios. Cassellis, 1642. Crellius (Joh.), Comment, et Paraphrasis in Ep. ad Ephesios.
Eleutherop. 1656.
Sermons sur PEpitre de St. Paul aux Rotterd 1699. 3 torn. Ferguson (Jas.), A brief Exposition of the Epp. of Paul to London, 1659. the Gal. and Eph. Goodwin (Thos.), Exposition, etc. Lond. 1681. Condensed,
(Pierre
Du Bose
ThA
Ephesiens (chs. L-iiL only).
Lond
1842.
Works: Edinb.
1861.
Hanneken, Explicatio, etc. Marp. 1631 ; Lips. 17 18, al. Heminge or Hemmingius, Comment, in omnes Epp. Apostolorum etc. Argent, 1586. Lagus (Daniel), Commentatio
f
Ephesios.
quadripertita super Ep. ad Gryphisw. 1664. Luther (Martin), Die Ep. an die Epheser ausgelegt ; aus seinem Stuttg. 1878. Schriften herausgegeben von Chr. G. Eberle. Mayer or Major (Georg), Enarratio Ep. Pauli scriptae ad
Ephesios.
Vitemb. 1552.
Meelfuhrer, Commentarius.
Norimb. 1628,
xxxvi

Basil, 1534.
etc.
[9
Megander, Commentarius.
Nailant, Enarrationes. Ven. 1554; Lond. 1570. Olevianus (Gaspax), Notae ex [ejus] Concionibust
bosnae, 1588. Ridley (Launcelot),
Her-
RepubL
Lond.
1
in
Comm. on Ephesians. Lond. 1540. Legh Richmond's Selections of the Reformers, etc.
(Robert),
81 7.
Rollock
Edinb. 1590.
In Ep. Pauli ad Ephesios Commentartus.

Paraphrasis
in Ep.
Schmid
(Sebastian),
(Peter),
super Ep.
ad
Ephesios.
Ingolstad.
Strassb. 1684.
Steuart
*593-
Comment
ad
Ephesios.
Tarnovius, Commentarius.
Wandaun,
Weinrich,
Paraphrasis.
Explicatio.
Slesw.
Rost 163d. 165a

Ep. ad Ephesios.
Vellerus
or
Weller
Lips. 1613. (Hieron.), Comment, in
Noriberg. 1550.
Woodhead
(Abraham),
Allestry
(Rich),
and
Walker
(Obadiah), Paraphrase and Annot. on all the Epistles of St. Paul. Oxford, 1682, etc.; repubL Oxford, 1852. Zanchius (Hieron.), Comm. in Ep. ad Ephesios. Neostad.
1594.
Eighteenth Century.
Jakob), Auslegung der Briefe Pauli an Philemon u. Thess. Halle, 1767. Chandler (Sam.), Paraphrase and Notes on the Epp. of St. Paul to the Gal. and Eph. (with Comm. on Thess.). London,
1777.
Baumgarten (Sigmund
die Galater, Epheser, Philip. Col.
Cramer (Joh. Andr.), Neue Uebersetzung des Briefs an die Epheser, nebst einer Auslegung desselben. Hamb. 1 782. Din ant (Petrus), De Brief aan die van Efeze verhlaart en toegepast. Rotterd. 171 1. (In Latin), Commentarii, etc. Rotterd.
1721,
1785.
al.
Esmarch (H.
P. C), Brief
an
die
Epheser
ubersetzt.
Altona,
Fend, Erlauterungen. (s.L) 1727. Gerbaden, Geopent Door. Traj. ad Rhen. 1707.
Gude (Gottlob Friedr.),

an
die Epheser.
Grundliche Erlaiiterung des
. .
Briefis
Lauban, 1735. Hazevoet, Verklaar. Leyden, 1718. Krause (Friedr. Aug. Wilh.), Der Brief an die Epheser uberFrankf. a M. 1789. setzt u. mit Anmerkungen begleitet. Locke (John), Paraphrase and Notes on the Epp. of St. Paul London, 1707, al. to the Gal. Cor. Pom. Eph.
9]
LITERATURE OF EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS

Moldenhauer,
Uebersetzung.
xxxvii
Hamb.
u.
1773.
iibcr die
Michaelis (Job. Dav.), Paraphrase Brief* Pauli an die Galater, Eph. Phil.
1750, 1769.
Anmerkungen Col. Bremen u.
Gotting.
(S. F. N.), Acroases in Epp. Paulinas ad Galatas et Leipz. 1795. Muller, Erklarung. Heidelb. 1793. Piconio (Bernardinus a, i.e. Bernardin de Picquigny), Epistolorum B. Pauli Apost. Triplex Expositio. Paris, 1 703 ; Vesont.
Morus
Ephesios.
et Paris, 1853.
Popp (G. C), Uebersetzung u. Erklarung der drei ersten Kapitel des Briefs an die Epheser. Rostock, 1799. Roell (Herm. Alex.), Commentarius in principium Ep. ad Comm. pars altera cum brevi Ephesios. Traj. ad Rben. 17 15.
Ep. ad
Traj. ad Rhen. 1731. Brief aan de Ephesen schriftmatig verklaarl. 3 deelen. Amsterd. 1735-38. Schmid (Sebastian), Paraphrasis super Ep. ad Ephesios.
Col. exegesis
;
e& D.
A. Roell.
Royaards
(Albertus), Paulus*
Strassb. 1684, al.
Schnappinger
erklart.
(Bonif.
Martin W.), Brief an die

Abr.),
Epheser
Heidelb. 1793.
Schutze (Theodore Job.

Ephesios.
Leipz. 1778. Spener (Philip Jak.),
Comm.
in
Ep. Pauli ad
Erklarung der Episteln an die Epheser Halae, 1706, al. Van Til (Solomon), Comm. in quatuor Pauli Epp. nempe priorem ad Cor. Eph. Phil, ac Coloss. Amstel. 1726. Zachariae (Gotthilf Trangott), Paraphrastische Erklarung der Briefe Pauli an die Gal. Eph. Phil. Col. u. Thess. Gotting. 1771, 1787.
u. Colosser.
Nineteenth Century.
Barry
Pauli an
(Alfred,
Bishop),
Colossians" (Ellicott's
die
(J.
New
Test.
"Commentary on Ephesians and Comm. for English Readers).

F. O.),
Baumgarten-Crusius
Eph.
A.),
u.
(L.
Comment,
iiber d.
Briefe
Kol.
Jena, 1847.
the Epistles to the Ephesians,
Beet
Beck
Commentary on
Erklarung
PhilippianS) Colossians,
(J.
and Philemon.
des Br.
T.),
London, 1890. Pauli an die Epheser.
Giiterslob, 1891.
Blaikir (W.
G.),
"Ephesians, Exposition and Homiletics"
(Pulpit Commentary).
London, 1886.
Kol. d.
Trans-
Bleek (Friedr.), Vorlesungen iiber die Briefe an d. Philemon und d. Epheser. Berlin, 1865. Braune (Karl) in Lange's Bibelwerk, 1867 & l8 75lated by M. B. Riddle. New York, 1879,
xxxviii
(R. W.), Epistle to the Ephesians; its Doctrine and 3rd ed. 1884. Davies (J. Llewelyn), The Epistle to the Ephesians, Colossians, and Philemon, 2nd ed. London, 1884. Eadie (John), Commentary on the Greeh Text of the Epistle of Paul to the Ephesians. 3rd ed. Edinb. 1883. Ellicott (C. J., Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol), Critical and Grammatical Commentary on Ephesians, with a Revised Translation. London, 1855, eta (many editions).
Ethics.
erklart.
Dale
(G. H. A.), Die Sendschreiben des Ap. P. Ubers. und Gottingen, 1856. Ditto, SUben Sendschreiben des N. B. Gottingen, 1870. " Ephesians," in the Expositor's Bible. 1892. Findlay (G. Flatt (J. F. v.), Vorlesungen uber a\ Br. an die Gal. u. die Epheser. Tubingen, 1828.
Ewald
GX
Graham
2 Aufl.
(Wm.), Lectures, etc. Lond. [1870I Harless, Commentar uber den Brief Pauli an
Stuttgart, 1858.
die Epheser.
Hodge
1856,
al.
(Chas.),
Comm. on Ep.
to the Ephesians.
New
die
York,
V. Hofmann (J. Chr. K.), Nordlingen, 1870.
Der Brief Pauli an

die
Ephesert
Holzhausen
erkldrt.
(F.
A.),
Der Br. an
Epheser
iibersetzt u.
Hannov. 1833.
1891.
Klopper (A.), Der Brief an die Epheser. Gottingen, Kahler, Predigten. Kiel, 1855. Lathrop (Joseph), Discourses. Philad. 1864.
Lightfoot
(J. B.,
St
Paul, from unpublished Commentaries by [him]." (Contains notes on the first 14 verses only.) 1895.
Bishop of Durham). " Notes on Epistles of London,
MacEvilly (John, R.C. Bp. of Galway), Exposition ofthe Epistles of St. Paul and of the Catholic Epistles. Lond. 1856; Dublin, i860. Macpherson (John), Commentary on St. Paul's Epistle to the
Edinb. 1892. (Rob. J.), Expository Lectures on the Ep. to the London, 1861. Ephesians. 4th ed. Meier (Fr. K.), Commentar uber d. Br. Pauli an d. Epheser.
Ephesians.
M'Ghee
Berlin, 1834.
Meyer
Pauli an
(H. A. W.), Kritisch

6te Aufl. Gottingen, 1886.
exegetisches
die Epheser.
Versorgt durch Dr.
Handbuch uber d. Woldemar
Schmidt Meyrick, " Ephesians,"
in the Speaker's Commentary. C. G.), "The Epistle to the Ephesians," in the Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges. Cambridge, 1895.
Moule(H.
Newland (Henry
Practical
Garrett),
New
and Exegetical Commentary.
Catena on St. PauTs Epp. % Lond. i860.
9]
LITERATURE OF EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS

Oltramare
xxxix
(Hugues), Comm. sur Us Epltres de S. Paul aux aux Ephes. et a Philemon. 3 torn. Paris, 1891. Passavant (Theophilus), Vcrsuch einer praktischen Auslegung Basel, 1836. des Briefes Pauli an die Epheser. Perceval (A. P.), Lectures, etc. Lond. 1846. Pridham (Arthur), Notes, etc. Lond. 1854. Pulsford (John), Christ and Bis Seed: Expository Discourses on PauPs Ep. to the Ephesians. Lond. 1872. Ruckert (Leopold J.), Der Br. Pauli an die Epheser erlaiitert
Coloss.
u. Vertheidigt.
Sadler (M.
1889.
Leipz. 1834. F.), Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians.
London,
Schenkel (Dan.), "Die Briefe an die Epheser, Philipper, Colosser" (ite Aufl. in Lange's Bibelwerk, 1862; ate AufL 1867, when Braune's Comm. replaced it in Lange). Schmidt (Woldemar). See Meyer. Schnedermann (G.), in Strack and Zocklert Kurtgef. Komm. Nordlingen, 1888. Simcoe (Henry A.), Ep. to Eph. with Texts gathered, etc.
Lond. 1832.
Von Soden (H.), "Die Briefe an die Kolosser, Epheser, Philemon; die Pastoralbriefe " (in HandrCommentar gum bearbeitet von H. T. Holtzmann, R. A. lipsius, u. a.) 2te Aufl. Freiburg L B., und Leipzig, 1893. Stier (Rudolph E.), Die Gemeindein Christo; Auslegung des Br. an die Epheser. Berlin, 1848, 1849. Turner (Samuel Hulbeart), The Ep. to the Ephesians in Greek and English, with an Analysis and Exegetical Commentary. New
York, 1856. Weiss (Bemhard), Die Paulinischen Briefe in berichtigten Leipz. 1896. Text, mit Kurter Erlaiiterung. Wohlenberg (G.), "Die Briefe an die Epheser, an die Colosser, an Philem. u. an die Philipper ausgelegt (in Strack and Miinchen, 1895. Zockler's Kurtgef. Comm.).
MT;
Critical Discussions.
General works on Introduction are not noticed here.
Alexander (W. L.), art "Ephesians" in Kitto's Cyclopaedia of Biblical Literature. Lond. 1863. Baur (F. C), Paulus der Aposteljesu Christi. Tubing. 1845. English trans. St. Paul, His Life and Work. London, 1873-75. Bemmelen (Van), Epp. ad Eph. et Col. collatae. Lugd Bat
1803.
Haenlein,
De lectoribus
Ep. ad Ephesios.
Erlang. 1797.
xl
g 10
Honig (W.), " Ueber das Verhaltniss des Briefes an die Epheser zum Br. an die Kolosser," in Hilgenfeld's Zeitschrift. 1872. Holtzmann (H. J.), Kritik der Epheser- und Kolosscr-briefc.
1872.
(Adolf), Review of the preceding, in his Ztit1873, p. 188. Hort (F. J. A.), Prolegomena to St. PauTs Epistle to the Romans and the Ephesians. (Posthumous.) Lond 1895. Huth, "Ep. ad Laod. in encycl. ad Eph. M Erlangen, 1751. Kiene (Adolf), " Der Epheserbrief ein Sendschreiben ... an die Heidenchristen der Sieben (?) Kleinasiat Gemeinden," eta Studien u. Kritiken, 1869, p. 285. Koster, De echtheid van de brieven aan de KoL en aan de Eph. Utrecht, 1877. Kostlin (J.), Der Lehrbegriff des Evang. u. der verwandten
schrift,
Hilgenfeld
N.T. Lehrbegriffe. Lightfoot (J.

London, 1893.
Berlin, 1843.
B.,
Epistle to the Ephesians" in Biblical Essays.
Bishop of Durham), " Destination of the (Posthumous.)
LUnemann, De Ep. ad Ephesios
Milugan
Britannica.
authentia. Gotting. 1842. (W.), art " Ephesians, Epistle to," in Encyclopaedia
9th
ed
Ep. ad
Coloss.
Montet
(L.), Introd. in
Mont
1841.
Robertson
(Arch.), art. "Ephesians, Epistle to," in Smith's
Dictionary of the Bible. RXbiger (J. Ferd),
2nd ed
Lond
1893.
De
art
Christologia Paulina contra
Baurium
Commentatio. Schenrel
1869.
1852. (Dan.),
"Epheserbrief,"
in
his
Bibellexicon.
Schneckenburger
Proselyten Taufe, etc. Kolossae." 1828.
(Matth.),
Ueber
d.
With Appendix, "Ueber
Alter d. fudischen Irrlehren zu
Soden (H.
v.),
" Epheserbrief" in/ahrb.f. ProU TheaL
1887.
{ 10.
ON SOME READINGS PECULIAR TO ONE OR TWO
MSS.
Epistles are here taken together. readings are discussed in their respective Here are brought together a few isolated or nearly isolated places. readings of particular MSS., several of which are probably errors of the respective copyists.
Both
The more important
K
ii.
stands alone
18, tt}s K\r)povopla* rip 8oip for t*
A>.
Eph. L
1,
&
t*
jcX.
lavrur for v/aw.
iL 4,
K* om.
10]
READINGS PECULIAR TO ONE OR TWO MSS.

%
xli
ii.
7,
in ver. 6 to the
ii.
K* omits the whole verse (passing from h> Xpurry hpov same words in ver. 7), supplied by K*. # jo, K , coi5 for avrov.
K*, ^povrffjua for
rjfjuav.
V. 17,
OiXrjfia.
V.
20 om.
CoL
iL io, K*, r^s &PX?F
iKKkt/aw for <ipx^ Ka* i&wtas.
himself corrected
seems to have (TiscL). In the following K is not quite alone : Eph. L 7, K*, corxoftcv (ixopcv, K C) = D*, Boh. Eth. Expressly attributed to Marcion by TeriiL 9, K* om. cv. tullian (Marc. v. 18), "rapuit haereticus in praepositionem, et ita occulti ab aeris deo," etc. So Dial. 870. legi fecit iv. 24, K*| fr hatonp-i teal Sucaioovvji for cv Sue jc &<r. Ambrosiaster. CoL L 23, #n}pv icat dmkrroAos (for Subcovos) = P. combines this and the genuine text; Eth. has tcrjpvt teal &d#covos ; while EuthaL (cod.) has Suucofos koX dn-ooToAos. L 24, t<hs toBt^mtw v/juuv for rots wJjp vpv ( L 37*).
it
:
iL 18, *, before dyycAoiv add. /acAAokiw. But the first scribe iiL i, 6 0co? for 6 Xptcrros.
A alone has
Eph. L
iv.
io, Korh. t^v oZkovo/uov for els out.
iv. 14, Tfirtoi
19,
c[fe
for npnot (v precedes). dxa]0apow vdo-rp for
cfe
ipya<rtay
faaBapaCas
wimp.
vL 23, ZAeot for dyam;. CoL L 23, io}pv xat dffdcrraAoe #cal SuLcoro* for SuLtwos. See under K. ^ with D*. In Eph. L 3 A* reads tytcfe fr In L 11 agrees with in reading cieA^/icr for &CX7/M&-
DG
63.
20, v/uv for ij/uv
v. 15, after oZv
A adds dScAô^ with K Vulg. Boh.
= 39,
B alone
Eph. L 13, lcr<t>payurOrj for copyist's eye passed from r to r).
L 21, i(owrtas
iL I,
lafoayfoOtirt
(t$ follows;
the
teal &pxqs for dp. xcU & hrUhfiuus for ApaprCais.
iL 5, after vapmrr&fuunv B adds *a! rcuf hn&vfitais, thus repeating the expression of ver. i with the erroneous reading. These can hardly be regarded otherwise than as serious errors. v. 17 after Kvptow add iJ/awk.
xlii

CoL L
i. i.
10
3 omits Xptorou.
4 omits
V ^X^6
ii 9 12 after x<*ps adds a/ia. L 12, KaAco-aiTi xal ucajwavri reading.

ii.
for
Uaiwarrt,
ft
complete
15, after l(ov<rCas
add
icoi.
not without support : Eph. i. 3 om. kcu Trcmfc^Hil. (semel), Victorinus. has also (bis) irarrjp without 6 0cds koL L 18 om. vfia>v= 17 Arm.
is
i. 20, ovpavois for iirovpavLois 7 1, 213, HiL Victorin. iL 5 before toTs irapairr. adds fr (?). iii. 3 om. 3r, with d, Victorin. Ambrosiaster. But
In the following
But HiL
= Arm
G, Goth.
have Kara
of
OTl.
iii. iii.
farotu
yap, which gives
some
probability to the omission
om.
dirocrraAoif,
with Ambrosiaster.
19, wXripuOjj for vkvjpta$rjT cts, with 17, 73, 116. iv. 7, fyuSv for ^/juuv 38, 109, Theodoret
vi.
io, SwafiowrOe for iv&wapuowrOe

14, iaxopjev, with
icai
= 17.
CoL L
ii.
23 om.
Boh. Arab. (A non liquet). before d</>tS^t, with m, Orig. (intp.) Ambrosiaster.
iii.
iv.
2 15 om. Ivi = 67 Sah. &* iv for 84' (71 has 3,
*=G
Si ov).
D the following may be noted D alone ( not being reckoned).

In
Eph. L 6 adds
i.
rrj?
before 86$179.
KaTafyyifcras.
1 6, Travo-ofxjou
for iravofiai (but so Victorinus).
ii.
15,
D*9
KarapTio-as for
(The Latin d has
"destruens.")
iii.
2,
i.
D
14,
iv t<3 1ktv0pa>$fjvai for fr s-croiA^rci.
Col.
D* om. tV 3.<p<TLv.
(compare *).
:
L 26, <f>avp<j)6V for t<t>avpu>(h}. iL io, bcKkrjo-Las for apx^f *al ovo-ia? iv. 6, D*, ^/xwv for fyicuv.
In the following it is supported by one or more Eph. L 6, D* adds vt$ avrov, with G and one cursive, but many versions. See note. L 9 om. avrov = G, Goth. Boh. L 12 om. avroi) = G. iL 5, D*, rats a/mpTicui for rots mpaam&fuvcrty. So appy. Vulg. Hier. eta (G has t# kfiapriq).
G has 08. id. after XpwrrcS add o5 rg. have " cujus," with Ambrosiaster. iiL 1 after lOv&v adds *p<r/fcv= 10.
Some MSS.
of the Vulg.
10]

2i,
xliii
iii.
b
D*,
Xpurrf "Lprov
kcI
tj}
lie#cAipri =s
G, Victorin.
Am-
brosiaster.
xpc&u G, 46, some Verss. and FF. rov Xptorov, a reading mentioned by "Western" reading, WH. Chrys. Hier. id. -Ambrosiaster, al. vi. ix, cfc for /k>5=G. Col. L 21, ti}s Scavota? v/ao>v for tj} Stavotp = G. L 22, dhroKaraAAaycrrcs G. Goth. Ambrosiaster.
iv.
29, ran-cuf for
v. 14,
hrul/a&o-i*
ii.
iii.
Syr-Harcl. 19, after KtâXrjv add Xpurrov 1 1, after 3w add apo-cv ai 0i}Av G.
Arm.
iii.
iv. iv.
10,
1
14, IvorifTos for TcXeianyros D*, Wfwrflcu for 8foatfc

2,
= G,
G, Ambrosiaster. Theoph. Ambrosiaster.
D*, Xpurrov for cov (with one cursive). D*, kovov for w<$vovG. are independent witnesses It is to be remembered that of a "Western "text
iv. 13,
DG
From
G we take the following

"ut
sciatis").
G alone
Eph. L
(F not being reckoned). a

trans-
18, Iva oZSarc for efe to ctf&ai v/105 (looks like
lation of the Latin
iL 2, rovrov for rov before
wcvoaroc (but Vulg. has "aeris
hujus").
iL iL 10,
3 om. kcu fipM. Kvphp for XpurrQ.
iL II, Sti TOVTO flVT)flOVVOVTS for

torin.).
&J
/U^/iOyCVCTC OTl
(ViO
iL 15, ncoivoV for kcukoV. iiL 8, after avn; add rov (fowl
iii.
1 1,
iiL 12,
om. t$ Xp. Iiprov. rip vpocaywyty cfc t^v Tapprptav*
V. 3, 6vofiaTii) for <5vofia{c<r0ft>. V. 5, cfc t^v fiaxnktCay for fr tj} fiaxriXtlq* v. 20, for xifcrcw (Theodoret combines
dpv
both
torip
*&rur
Col L 6 om. ijs. ZoL L 22 om. avrou.
MS. but F agrees; but the Latin has "in quo." iii. 8, Kard for rcC, and add after v/i&v, /i^ faropmcrfw. Some Vss. agree, but in them the preceding word may be the nominative, *^. "Stultaoquium." iiL 13, &pyrp for fwfi<fmv, iiL 24, r$ "Kvplf fjfiwv irprov Xpurrov $ SouXcvcrc
L 29,
26, after dytot? add AvocrrAocft. cv o for els 0. Of course, no
xliv
10
iv. 9, after tol S8c add vparrofiwa. This looks like a translation from the Latin "quae hie aguntur," which cannot be cited as supporting G, for it is a fitting rendering of ra &8c. In the following, G is not without support (For the coincidences with D see above.) Eph. ii. 6, om. cV Xpurry 'Iiprov Victorin. HiL
ii.
1 2,
after hrayytXCas
add avrwv Tert.
Victoria. Ambrosiaster,
Eth.
add rovry Victorin. Ambr. Vulg. (some mss.). cAax&mp for iXaxurroripy = 49. iii. 9, after alwvw add #cal Airo tv ycvcwK Syr-HarcL iiL 10 om. vw*Vulg. Syr-Pesh. iii 2 1 om. tov aiwos, with cod. toL (of Vulg.) Ambrosiaster. =* " veritatem iv. 15, dXrjOCav 8c mxowrc? for tXqOcvovrcs 8c autem facientes," Vulg. Victorin. Ambrosiaster, Hier. But the Latin is probably only an interpretation of SX-qOtvovrt^ in which case the reading of G would have to be regarded as a translation of the Latin. Jerome in Quaest. 10 (A/gasT) has " veritatem autem
it.
after tcoo-fup
8,
iii.
loquentes." iv. 16 om. xar cVcpyctay, with

iv.
Arm. (Use.)
Iren. (interp.) a/.
23,
om. 8c- Etk
Col. L 24, tyawXtfpia for dvravairXrfp^ 43, 46, a/. tropica for ras tyxas #col* HiL (/>) Novat (Syr-Pesh. 15, and Goth, seem to combine both). may have originated from CAPXA, but this would not fully explain the change. It is more probable that the reading originated in an interpretation of
ii.
iV
CAPEA
the Syr. and Goth, having had our Greek text, but understanding dircxS. to mean "putting off his flesh." Hil. elsewhere has "spolians se carne et principalis et potestates ostentui fecit" (204). This interpretation being mistaken by a Greek
dircffSvcrflifLcvos,
scribe for
ii.
a various reading, he conformed
his text thereto.
Syr-Harcl. Hil. Am23, after T<nrivo<t>po<rvvQ add tow voos brosiaster. (Goth. Boh. add cordis.) This again looks like a
rendering of a Latin expression.

It has to be noted that C is defective from Eph. L 1, IlavAo? to vpoaaywyrjv, ii. 18, and from iv. 17, rovro oZv to ical Tied in Phil. L 22. As E is only a copy of (after correction), it has not been thought necessary or useful to cite it amongst the witnesses to Similarly, as F, if not copied from (as Hort various readings. thinks), is, at best, an inferior copy of the same exemplar, it has not been cited. To cite D E, or F G, or D E F G, is to give the reader the trouble of calling to mind on each occasion the known relationship of the respective pairs.
10]
xlv
It may not be out of place here to say a word on that much misapplied maxim: "The more difficult reading is to be preferred " ; a maxim which, pressed to its logical conclusion, would oblige us to accept the unintelligible because of its unintelligibility and which, indeed, is sometimes urged in support of a reading which cannot be interpreted without violence. Bengel with his usual terseness and precision expressed in four words the true maxim of which this is a perversion : " Proclivi scriptioni praestat ardua." " Proclivis scriptio " is not a reading easy to understand, but one into which the scribe would easily fall; and "scriptio ardua" is that which would come less naturally to him. The question is not of the interpreter, but of the scribe. This includes the former erroneous maxim so far as it is true ; but it may, and often does happen that the "proclivis scriptio * is a "difficilis BengePs maxim includes a variety of cases which he lectio."
discusses in detail*
ABBREVIATIONS.
Versions*
Eth.
Ann.
Boh.
Ethiopia Armenian.
Bohairic.
Cited by Tisch. as "Coptic," by Tregelles as " Memphitic," by WH. as w me. M

Latin.
It or ItaL Sah.
Old
The Sahidic
.
or Thebaic ("the."
Syriac. Syriac.
Syr-Pesh. . Syr-Harcl. or
WH.). The Peshitto
HcL
The Harclean
MSS.
The
following represent
;
Amiatinus
fuld.
= Cod.
Fuldensis
of the Vulgate : viz. am. ; tol. Cod. Toletanus.
>
Cod.
Editors* Tisch.
Tischendort
Tregelles.
Treg.
WH.
Alf.
Westcott and Hort

Alford.
DeW.
E1L
De
Wette.
Ellicott
W. Schmidt
Theod. Mops.
Other abbreviations
,
Woldemar Schmidt, Editor of Meyer's Comm. on Ephesians.

Theodore of Mopsuestia.
difficulty.
will create
no
till
THE
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
INTRODUCTION.
S
I.
THE CHURCH AT COLOSSAE.
Colossak
river
(or Colassae, see L 2) was situated in Phrygia, on the Lycus, a tributary to the Maeander. Herodotus speaks of it
(vii.
i.
as iroAis ficyaXr)
icai fjurfoXtf
(Anab.
it
as a xoAriia. w celeberrima (H.

after
Xenophon, as iroAis otxov/tcn; xai cv&uûof Strabo, however (xii. 8), only reckons Pliny's mention of it amongst the "oppida
30)
;
2. 6).
N. v. 32, 41) is not inconsistent with this. It is enumerating the considerable towns that he speaks of " oppida celeberrima, praeter jam dicta," thus introducing along Eusebius (Chron. with Colossae, other small and decayed places. Olymp. 210. 4) records its destruction (with that of Laodicea and Hierapolis) in the tenth year of Nero. Tacitus (Ann. xiv. 27) states that Laodicea, " ex illustribus Asiae urbibus," was destroyed by an earthquake in the seventh year of Nero. (See Introduction
to Ephesians.)
was not founded by St Paul, nor had ii. 1). These indications in the Epistle agree with the narrative in the Acts of the Apostles, which represents his journeys as following a route which would not bring him to Colossae. He is, indeed, related to have passed through Phrygia on his second and third missionary journeys ; but Phrygia was a very comprehensive term, and on neither occasion does the
at Colossae
(i.
The Church
visited
it
been
by him
4, 7-9,
somewhat
direction of his route or anything in the context point to this isolated corner of Phrygia. In his second missionary journey, after visiting the Churches
of Pisidia and Lycaonia, he passes through tt/v Qpvyiav ai TaXaruap xwpay (Acts xvL 6), i.e. the Phrygian region of the
ihrll
THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS
[*
work was committed, and to their imperfect sympathy with the supreme God; but, at the same time, they might fitly receive worship as mediators between God and man ; and, indeed, humanity seemed in its weakness to need the intervention of some such beings less remote from itself than the highest heaven."
Hence the references in the Epistle to the rairccvo^pocrvn; in connexion with this angel worship. St Paul assures his readers, with an authority which he clearly expects them to accept, that the gospel they had learned from Epaphras required no such addition as the false teachers pressed upon them. He points out to them that they are members of a body of which the Head, Christ, was supreme above all these angelic powers of whatever kind.
2.
GENUINENESS OF THE EPISTLE TO THE

COLOSSIANS.
no
certain trace of the Epistle in Clemens Romanus Barnabas, however, has a distinct allusion to CoL i. 1 6 in XU. 7, tijv 8odv tov 'Iiprou, on iv avnp vd xra, xai cfe a{rr6v. Ignatius, Eph. x. 3, has iSpaZot tj} tiotci, and so Polycarp, x. 1, Probably also the division into Iparol doubtless from CoL L 23. Kal aoparoi, in combination with to brovfxLvta, in Ign. Smyrn, vL 1, may be another allusion to L 16. The connexion also of idolatry and covetousness in Polyc. xL 2 may have been suggested by Col. L 23, 20, iii. 5. Justin, Dial. p. 311 (lxxxv), calls Christ irporroroico? vdxnfi ktmtcws, after CoL L 15 (cf. irpworoKOv iw vdvrwv wovrjfJLdnavf p. 310); also p. 326 (xevi), irpiar6roKoy tov 0cov kou irpb Considering the frequent use of the Epistle irayrcov twv ktut/muw. to the Ephesiaiis, it is remarkable that the traces of this Epistle previous to Irenaeus are so few and uncertain. Its shortness seems an inadequate explanation. Probably the true account is that, the Epistle being so largely controversial, its use would be less familiar to those who had no concern with the heresies with which About its early and uncontroverted reception as the it deals. work of St Paul, there is no doubt Irenaeus, iii. 14. 1, says " Iterum in ea epistola quae est ad Colossenses ait ' Salutat vos Lucas medicus dilectus."' In the following section he quotes CoL i. 21, 22, and, indeed, he cites passages from every chapter. Clement of Alexandria, Slrom. i. 1, says #civ vjj vpb* racif hrtoroktf vovflcrowrc*, ypctyct, rdvra avOpwnov, k.t.X.CoL i. 28, and again in several other places he cites the Epistle. Origen, Tertullian also cites passages from each chapter. contra Cels. v. 8, quotes il 18, 19, as from St Paul to the
There
is
or in Hennas.
KoW-
Colossians.
GENUINENESS OF EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS
li
Marcion received the p. as St Paul's, and the school of Valentinus also recognised it In the Muratorian Canon it has the same place as in our MSS. The external evidence for the genuineness is in no wise defective, nor was any question raised on the point until Mayerhoff (Der Brief an die Kolosser, u.s.w. 1838) contested it on the grounds of vocabulary, style, and differences from St Paul in thought and expression ; and, in addition to these, its relation to the Epistle to the Ephesians, which he considered to be genuine, and its supposed reference to Cerinthus. Many critics followed his lead, including Baur, Hilgenfeld, Pfleiderer, etc., rejecting, however, the Epistle to Ewald, partly followed by Renan, explained the Ephesians also. what seemed un-Pauline in the Epistle by the supposition that Timothy wrote it under the apostle's direction, an hypothesis excluded by L 23, ii. 1, 5. De Wette replied to MayerhofTs argu ments, rejecting, however, the Epistle to the Ephesians. Holtzmann, as we have seen in the Introduction to the latter Epistle, regarded the present Epistle as an expansion by an interpolator of a short, genuine Epistle, being led to this conclusion by a careful critical examination of certain parallel passages in the two Epistles, the result of whi :h was to show conclusively that it was impossible to maintain either, with Mayerhoff, the priority in every case of Eph., or, with De Wette, that of Col. 1 As a specimen of his restoration of the original nucleus of the latter Epistle, the following may suffice. Ch. L 9-29 reads as
follows
AiA tovto teal 17/Actc ov iravojxcOa xnrkp vfmv irpoav\6fivoi vepiirarrjaxu v/xa? df tto? rov 0cov, os ippwraro 17/Aas c#c rip i(ovcw rov ckotovs xal fiT(mj<rv cts ttjv /frurtXetav rov vlov avrov ori Iv aura
jcat v/ias vori oWas tyOpohs iv tois ipyois rots KarqWayrjre iv T<p cna/uiTt ttjs aaptebs avrov oca rov Oavarov, ciyc fn-i/icvcrc tq wmttci copai'ot #cat firj fierajcivovfuvoi airb rov cvayyeXiov ov iycyopqv fyai HavXoq Siaxovos Kara rrjv oucovofuav rov 0eov rrjv SoOturdv pot cfe v/ias trXtfoHxrat rov k6yov rov 6cov, cis 8 icai kottiS) &ymvi6fivos Kara, rr/v ivtpytiav avrov r^v ivtpyoyJvqv iv
evoomprcv icaTaAAaâi,
irovrjpoU,
vwl
8k
Holtzmann regards as original only w. 3, 12, 13, 17. a very ingenious abridgment, and supposes extreme ingenuity on the part of the interpolator, who so cleverly dovetailed his own work into St Paul's that, had Eph. not existed, no one would have suspected CoL of being interpolated. It would be
iii.
Of ch.
This
is
strange, too, that the interpolated letter should so completely dis-
place the Pauline original.
It
would seem,
compelled to suppose
1
it
known only
in fact, as if we were to this interpolator "who
For a
list
U the Ephesians,
of the principal passages compared, see Introduction to the Ep.
til

it
y
[ ft
from oblivion" (Kritik p. 305) only to consign it Holtzmann's theory is, as Jiilicher says, too complicated to be accepted. In such a case, for example, as Col. i. 27 compared with Eph. L 9, 10, and iii. 8, 9, 1 6, 1 7 ; or, again, Col. iii. 12-15 **& Eph. iv. 2-4, 32, it is involved in inextricable diffiAnd as this seems to be generally felt, it is not necessary culties. to examine his instances in detail. Von Soden, in his article in the Jahrb. f. Protest. Theol. 1875, limited the interpolations to L 15-20, ii. 10, 15, 18 (partly). In his Commentary he still further reduces the interpolation to L i6, 17, i.e. to wavra to oWcmyKc, which he regards as a gloss (Einl. p. 1 2). Against the genuineness is alleged, first, the absence of St. Paul's favourite terms and turns of expression, together with the occurrence of others which are foreign to the acknowledged Epistles. For example, ouccuos with its derivatives, diroKaAv^ri?,
rescued
thither again.
jcoivcovia, vo/ios, irurrcvciv, are absent, while it is noted that yap occurs only five it is read in iii. 24), as against thirty-six times in GaL and some three hundred times in the three other great Epistles. But these phenomena are not without parallel in other Epistles or parts of Epistles of similar length, hucaunrwr) occurs in 1 Cor. only once (i. 30), oYmuo? not at all. Both adjective and substantive are absent from 1 Thess., as well as the verb, o-um/pta is not used in 1 Cor. or Gal., while in 2 Cor. o-cdw occurs but once ; diroKoAv^ri? is not used in Phil, or 1 Thess., and in 2 Cor. only in xii. 1, 7, so that the first eleven chs. are without it m<rTvv is found in 2 Cor. only in a quotation, iv. 13 ; wraKorj not Again, in 1 Cor. Gal. Phil. 1 Thess. ; vofjm not in 2 Cor. or Thess. as to the conjunctions, &pa does not occur in Phil., while apa oZv, frequent in Rom., is not used in 1 or 2 Cor., and only once in Sto occurs only once in Gal. (iv. 31, where Rec has fya), Gal. and Start once in 1 Cor., not at all in 2 Cor. yap is hardly more frequent (relatively) in Eph., which Mayerhoff accepted, than in Its comparative infrequency in both as compared with Rom. Col. and Cor. is clearly due to the more argumentative character of the
SoKLfid^LVy
xnraxorj,
crurrqpla,
as well as apa, times (or six if
810, Score,
latter Epistles.
'
As to the aira( Acyo/Acva, they are not more numerous than was be expected in an Epistle dealing with novel questions. In addition to ten words found only here and in Eph., there are fortyeight which do not occur elsewhere in St Paul But as Soden remarks, Paul had for a considerable time been under the new linguistic influence of Rome. Salmon quotes a very pertinent remark of Dr. Mahaffy, who compares St Paul to Xenophon in this matter of varying vocabulary. He says " His (Xenophon's) later tracts are full of un- Attic words, picked up from his changing surroundings ; and, what is more curious, in each of them there
to
:
gft]

many words
only used by him once
;
liii
are
variation in diction each single
so that on the ground of be, and, indeed, has been, rejected as non-Xenophontic. This variation not only applies to words which might not be required again, but to such terms as evav&pta (Comm. iii. 3. 12), varied to ctyvx'a (H?*- 10. 21), cvroA/ua (quoted by Stobaeus), ArSpcionp (Anab. vL 5. 14), all used only Every page in Sauppe's Lexiiogus Xen. bristles with words once. only once used in this way. Now, of classical writers, Xenophon is perhaps (except Herodotus) the only man whose life corresponded to St Paul's in its roving habits, which would bring him into contact with the spoken Greek of varying societies." The long sentences, such as L 9-20, ii. 8-12, are not without analogy in other Epistles, eg. Rom. L 1-7, ii. 5-10, 14-16, iii 1 he series of 23-26 ; Gal. ii. 3-5, 6-9 ; Phil iii. 8-1 1. relatives in i. 13-22 and ii. 10-12 is remarkable, but not without parallel; and in both cases the connexion shows that what is added in the relative clauses, though evident, had been overlooked by the heretical teachers. It was therefore properly connected by
book might
Anacolutha are particularly frequent in St. Paul. There turns of expression which are strikingly Pauline, as vl 4, 8, 17, 18, 23, iii. 14, iv. 6, 17. In comparing the general tone of the Epistle with that of the other Epistles, it must be observed that St Paul had not here to contend with any opposition directed against him or his teaching, nor had he to defend himself against objections, but was simply called on to express his judgment on the novel additions to the gospel teaching which were being pressed on the Colossians. This new teaching had not yet gained acceptance or led to factious divisions amongst them. Nor has he any longer occasion to argue that Gentiles are admitted to the Christian Church on equal terms with Jews; this question is no longer agitated here ; St Paul's own solution of the problem is assumed. Nor was he concerned here with the conditions of salvation, whether by faith or by the works of the law. If he does not adduce proof from the O.T., neither does he do this in Phil, where there might seem to be more occasion for doing so. The greater stress laid here on knowledge and wisdom is explained by the fact that the false teachers were endeavouring to dazzle their hearers by a show of profound wisdom to which the apostle opposes the true wisdom. Hence, also, his frequent use of such words as ftwrnjpiov, faroKpvwrttv, &,v6tcpv<f>osf yvo>/Hciv,
relative.
are also
many
<f>avpovv.
Mayerhoff notes the hunting

characteristic of this Epistle.
after
synonyms as an un-Pauline
it
Of his many examples

;
may
suffice
to give a few specimens
6, tcapiro<f>opovfivov koX aiâvd/xcvov

7,
djcotW X/hotov] ;
id,
teal
briyivuKrtcuv
xnrojwvrj
jcai
ovv&ovXo* [17/w], Scoucofos [tov

;
1 1,
fiaxpoOvfua
23,
rclcîcAiayjiFOi
*gX
liv

Many
synonyms are
clearly not so
;
[ ft
ISpalbi Kai pi) ftrroucivov/xcvoi (see Eadie, p. xxvii).
of the
for
so-called
justly
and even where they are

See,
so called,
the other Epistles supply parallels.

3, 7, 9, 10, 11, 15, 20, 24, 25.
example, Phil. L
serious
objection to the genuineness of the Epistle, which would be if well founded, is that the Epistle combats certain errors of a Gnostic character which cannot have existed at so early a date. It is not enough, however, to show that errors of an analogous kind, but more developed, existed in the middle of the second century ; it is necessary to show that they could not have existed But we have absolutely no materials in the time of St. Paul. for forming an opinion on this point, except in the New Testament
itself. The earliest Gnostic writer of whom we have definite information is Cerinthus. Indeed, Mayerhoff supposed the writer's polemic to be directed But although there is an affinity between the errors against him. of Cerinthus and those of the Colossian teachers, a closer examination shows that the latter belong to an earlier stage of development There is no trace in the Epistle of the notion of creation by a demiurge ignorant of the supreme God, still less of that by one opposed to Him (as in the later Gnostics). Nor did the teaching of Cerinthus include asceticism. As to the view of Christ held by the Colossian false teachers, it was clearly derogatory, as we may infer from the emphatic assertions in i. 19, ii. 9 ; but the generality of the language there used shows that their opinions had not been stated with such precision as was the case when St John wrote his Gospel, or, not to assume his authorship, when the Gospel bearing
An
his
name was
written.
Baur, on the other hand, regards the Epistle to the Colossians (as well as that to the Ephesians) as written from an early Gnostic point of view, at a time, namely, when Gnostic ideas first coming into vogue still appeared to be unobjectionable Christian speculaThe errors combated were, he thought, those of the tion. Ebionites, who maintained circumcision, abstained from animal food, observed the Jewish Sabbath, and attached high importance to the doctrine of angels and religious worship of them, and, lastly, considered Christ to be only one of these hcrioftu <k ha t&v dpYayycAcDV fX%ova &k avr&v ovra, avrov Si jcvpicvctv twv dyycXw kox wavTiov twf am rov iravroKparopos Trvrroirjfjicvitiv (Epiph. Haer.
:
XXX. 16).
In which of St Paul's Epistles, says Baur, do we find to. hrovpdvia classified as they are in Eph. and Col. ? The reply is obvious ; the classification of the celestial hierarchy which we find in these Epistles is not Paul's at all (as will be shown in the exposition), but that of the false teachers. In reference, again, to the assertion in Col. and Eph., that
S 2]
lv
Christ is the creative principle of everything existing, and therefore that to Him is attributed absolute pre-existence, Baur remarks that " it is true that we find certain hints of similar views in the homologoumena of the apostle, but they are no more than hints, the meaning of which is open to question; while here, on the contrary, the absolute premundane existence is the dominating, the pervading element within which the whole thought of these Epistles moves." For the idea that Christ's activity comprehends heavenly and earthly things at once and in the same degree, there is, he says, no analogy in Paul's writings, but we are here transported to a circle of ideas which belongs to a different era, namely, the period of Gnosticism (St Paul, Eng. tr. p. 7). The Gnostic systems, says Baur, rest on the root idea that ail spiritual life which has proceeded from the supreme God has to return to its original unity, and to be taken back again into the absolute principle, so that every discord which has arisen shall be resolved into harmony. And so in these Epistles Christ's work is mainly that of restoring, bringing back, and making unity. His work is contemplated as a mediation and atonement whose effects extend to the whole universe. Accepting Holtzmann's caution (p. 296), that when critics like Baur and himself speak of Gnostic colouring in the Epistle, they do not mean Gnosticism proper, we may reply, first, that according to the above statement of Baur, the root idea of Gnostic systems includes the emanation of inferior spiritual existences from the Supreme; and this can hardly be separated from the idea of the creation of matter by the inferior spirits, since it was just to explain the evil of matter that the theory of emanations, etc., was devised. Of these ideas there is no trace The notion of succesin the Epistle except by way of opposition. sive evolutions from the Divine nature, forming the links of a chain which binds the finite to the Infinite, is utterly opposed to the teaching of the Epistle; nor is it conceivable as a later development It is, however, quite of anything that the writer himself says. Secondly, the consistent with the teaching that he condemns. idea of reconciliation is wholly different from that of return to the unity of the Divine nature of that which has emanated or been
evolved from it. Baur, indeed, admits the possibility that the conception of the work of Christ which is exhibited in these Epistles may be harmonised with the Pauline Christology and doctrine of atonement ; yet it is certain, he adds, that with Paul these ideas never assume the prominence which they have here. It is a transcendental region into which Paul looked now and then, but of which he had no definite views, and which he never introduced into his Epistles from a taste for metaphysical speculation.
lvi
" As even the Christology of these Epistles bears unmistakably the impress of Gnosticism," says Baur, " we meet also with other
G lostic conceptions"; and he draws attention especially to irAqpw/ia.

The Gnostic
not the Absolute itself, but it is that in conception of itself. According to the doctrine of the Valentinians, it is the sum of the aeons by which the original Divine source is filled. Now this, says Baur, is just the conception of the Pleroma which we find in both our Epistles ; the only difference being that there is no express mention here of a plurality of aeons as the complement of the Pleroma, and that not the supreme God Himself, but Christ, is the Pleroma, since only in Christ does the self-existent God unfold Himself in the fulness of concrete life. He finds a further remarkable agreement with the Valentinians in the comparison of the relation of husband to wife with that of Christ to the Church, since, according to the Valentinians, trie aeons were divided into male and female, united in pairs
irkrjptofm is
which the Absolute
realises the
Hence he explains how as Christ is the irA^pcu/Ao, so also is the Church that is to say, she is the irAijpw/xa of Christ ; since He is the v\rjp<ofia in the highest sense, she is to vkqpta/Aa rov ra vavra cv irauri vXrjpovfUvov. The latter suggestion scarcely merits a serious refutation. To compare the position of Christ as viewed by the writer with that of one of the aeons of the Valentinians, is to contradict the fundamental thesis of the Epistles, namely, that Christ is exalted far above all existences, earthly and heavenly, by whatever name they may be called. Equally remote from the writer's thought, and irreconcilable with it, is the conception of te*Ai/<ria as an Indeed, the whole system of aeon co-ordinate with Christ. syzygies or duads was devised as a theory of successive generation. Nothing in the remotest degree resembling this appears in the Throughout both, the relation of Christ to the Church Epistles. the figure of marriage is is that of the head to the body; introduced only incidentally, not with the view of illustrating or explaining the union of Christ and the Church by that of man and wife, but in order to set forth the love of Christ as the Head, for His Body, the Church, as a pattern for the Christian husband and it is the headship of Christ that is used to illustrate the headship of the man " For we are members of His body." The idea of the thing illustrated reacts in the writer's mind on the conception of that with which it was compared, and so there grows up a new representation of the relation of Christ to the Church. As to the word irXiJpuyia, so far is the conception in our Epistles from being just the same as that of the Valentinians, that What the difference which Baur himself mentions is a vital one. the writer so emphatically asserts is that the whole vXrjpupa resides
called syzygies.
2]
GENUINENESS OF EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS
Ivii
in Christ, not a mere fraction of it, not a single Divine power only, That some such as the Gnostic use of the word would suggest view as this, of a part only of the irAi/payta residing in Christ, was held by the Colossian false teachers, may be fairly inferred from the writer's insistence on *av to irAi/pw/ia, k.t.A. It is simple and natural, then, to suppose that he purposely employs a term common to himself and them in such a way as to combat directly their erroneous views. How can such a fact be supposed to indicate a Gnostic tendency on the part of the writer ? In fact, once it is admitted that the thoughts expressed in this Epistle (or that to the Ephesians) are capable of being reconciled to those of St Paul, it is no longer possible to use the (supposed) Gnostic colouring as an argument against the genuineness of a writing which bears the name of Paul, and which in addition has such strong external support It is true these thoughts have more prominence and are more developed here than in the acknowledged Epistles, but this is fully accounted for by the nature of the errors with which the apostle had to contend The circumstances of Rome, Corinth, and Galatia were not such as to call for such an exposition as we find here ; indeed, in the Epistles to the last two Churches, at least, it would have been singularly out of place. It is not to a taste for indulging in metaphysical speculation that we are to trace its presence here, but to the exigencies of the case. But, then, it is said that although St Paul did now and then look into this transcendental region, he had no definite views of it What then? If the Epistles are genuine, several years had elapsed since the writing of the four great Epistles. Was the apostle's mind so rigid that we cannot conceive his views becoming more developed and more distinct in the interval of five or six years ? Nothing was more likely to further their development than the presence of erroneous teaching. Just as the articles of the Church's creed took form only gradually as errors sprang up, so in an individual mind, even in that of the apostle, a particular truth would be more distinctly recognised and more precisely formulated when the opposing error presented itself. It may be remarked that Baur found traces of Gnostic thought in the Epistle to the Philippians also, the genuineness of which has,
however, been acknowledged by almost all subsequent critics, including Hausrath (who supposes it made up of two Epistles), Hilgenfeld, Holtzmann, Pfleiderer, Reuss, Renan, Schenkel. Indeed, it may be regarded as practically beyond question. This is not without importance for the Epistle to the Colossians, for it supplies an answer to the objections to the latter Ep. founded on For it contains the loftiness of the attributes assigned to Christ. nothing that goes beyond Phil. ii. 6-n. On the other hand, the Epistle to the Colossians, as Renan observes, cannot be separated
lviii
from the Epistle to Philemon. The coincidence in some of the names mentioned might be explained by the hypothesis that the
made use of the shorter. But the exclude this supposition (see Salmon, Introduction, ch. xx.). Col. mentions Jesus, surnamed Justus, an otherwise unknown person, in addition to those mentioned in Philem., while Philemon is not mentioned at all. Again, while Aristarchus and Epaphras are mentioned in both Epp., it is the former that is called fellow-prisoner in Col., the latter in Philemon. But there is nothing in the Ep. to Philemon to suggest Colossae as the city of We learn his connexion with it only by finding his his residence. runaway slave Onesimus mentioned in Col. as "one of you. M Having learned this we observe further that Archippus, who in the private Epistle appears as an intimate, perhaps son, of Philemon, is mentioned in Col. in such a way as to suggest that he held office Certainly the way in which his name either there or in Laodicea. is introduced there is as unlike as possible to the contrivance of a That Onesimus alone should be mentioned as Paul's forger. messenger in the letter to Philemon, but Tychicus with him in the
forger of the longer Epistle
differences
public Epistle, is perfectly natural. Now the genuineness of the Epistle to Philemon is beyond question ; in fact, in the whole range of literature there is no piece which bears more unmistakably the stamp of originality and To quote Renan : " Paul seul, autant qu'il semble, genuineness. a pu crire ce petit chef d'oeuvre." Baur, indeed, felt himself compelled to reject it in consequence of its intimate connexion with Col. and Eph., and then set himself to confirm his rejection by an examination of the diction of the Epistle and of the circumHis argument is valuable as a reductio ad stances supposed. absurdum of his whole method. V. Soden remarks that there is a striking correspondence both in language and thought between the Ep. to the Colossians and to the only other document which we possess from the apostle's hand during his Roman imprisonment, viz. the Ep. to the Philippians Thus as to language he compares (as he does not accept Eph.). irkrjpovv in Col. three times, in Phil, four times <nr\ayxya Phil. ii. i Aoyos rov 0cov, Col. i. 25, ohcripfjLov, Col. iii. 12, PhiL i. 14: TrcpiTo/Aiy (figurative), Col. ii. n, Phil. iii. 3: dywv, CoL ii. 1, Phil. i. 30: cwrctvai, Col. ii. 5, PhiL i. 27: 8c<r/iot, CoL iv. 18, Phil. L 7, 13 f., 17 : Ta nor fyic, Col iv. 7, Phil. i. 12 : Tairtvo<f>p<xrvvrjt Col. ii. 23, iii. 12, PhiL iL 3: icapiroôpowrcv, CoL L IO, wcrrXrjptofxcvot. Kapiroy, Phil. L 11: a/wo/xos, CoL L 22,
: :
Kara rrfv frl/ryctav, 28, PhiL iiL 15 21: oVw, CoL iii. 1, PhiL iii. 14: Ta ivl rfjs yrfa Col. iii. 2, ciriycia, Phil. iii. 19: fipafolov, Phil. iii. 14, fcara/?pa)3ciW9 Col. ii. 18. As to style, he compares the brevity of
PhiL
iL
15:
TcA-ao?,
CoL L
iii.
K.T.A.,
CoL L
29,
Phil.
8-5]
PLACE AND DATE OF WRITING

17
1 1
1}
lix
Col.
Phil.
iv.
and Phil
ii.
:
relative, Col.
i.
iv. 2 ; the introduction of a judgment 23, Phil. i. 28, iil 19: the sentences, Col. the prayer for hriyvwns, Col. L 9 f. ; Phil. L 9
:
by a L 9,
:
the
Col. iii. 15, Phil. iv. 7 the similar ideas, CoL L 24 and Phil. iii. 10 ; Col. ii. 18 and Phil. iii. 3 ; Col. i. 24 and Phil ii. 30: the references to what the readers had heard, Col. L 7, Phil. iv. 9 : and, lastly, the close correspondence of some peculiar dogmatic expressions ; see L 19 ff.
#cal
wish
lprjv7ft k.t.X.,
3.
PLACE AND DATE OF WRITING.
For these see Introduction to the Epistle to the Ephesidns9 where it is shown to be probable that the Epistle was written from Rome about a.d. 63. The occasion seems to have been the information furnished by Epaphras of the dangers to which the Church at Colossae was exposed from heretical teachers.
4.
RELATION TO OTHER
NEW TESTAMENT
WRITINGS,
For the relation to the Epistle to the Ephesians, see the Introduction to that Epistle. The relation to the Apocalypse deserves particular notice. It is especially in the Epistle to Laodicea, Rev. iii 14-21, that we find resemblances. In that Epistle, St John, speaking in the person of the Lord, declares almost in the language of St Paul that He is the Amen, the faithful and true Witness, v\ tyxq t^s jcrtfrcuc rov 0ov, an expression which does not occur (nor anything like it) in any of the other six Epistles. Compare Col. L 15, irpamh-ojro? irdarp Krurca*. Doubtless there still remained some trace of the heresy which St Paul combated. Again, Rev. iii. 2 r, $qmto> avnp KoBurai per i/iou iv r$ 0p6v<p /iov, k.t.A,., is very parallel to CoL iii. 1 and Eph. ii. 6, and here again there is nothing similar in the " This double coincidence (says Lightfoot), affectother Epistles. ing the two ideas which may be said to cover the whole ground in the Epistle to the Colossians, can hardly, I think, be fortuitous, and suggests an acquaintance with and recognition of the earlier apostle's teaching on the part of St John " (p. 42).
5.
VOCABULARY OF THE EPISTLE.

Avtipuk,
List offara \sy6fieva in the Epistle to the Colossians.
d0v/mv,
&Tic8v70<u,
alcrxpcXoyta,
&rcjc8v<riS|
&vravawXrjpovvi
ApcoTccio,
tyctfiiOy
&vrair6$o<rit,
&r6xPV'i*>
fipapVty%
lx

Eph.
cvx<ty>urros,
&oyiULT%<rOaiy Suva/iow (see

ififiaTCvew,
vovfJLrptia,
vi. io), iOcXoOprjo-Ktia, tlprjvoTroulv^
$6rrjs9
Karafipaficvciv,
/xcrcuctvctv,
fio/A<f>-q,
bparos,
TraprjyopiOy
iridavoXoyia,
vX.rjafiovq9
irpoaKaviv9
irpooyXovv, vpwrevuv, OTcpccafia, av\aywyivt

Xup6ypa<j>ov.
<rfuzri#cu>s, <f>i\<xro<f>ia,
ii.
More than
half of these (18) are in ch.
only.
Wards which occur

aAas,
dirofcpiVccr&u,
in other Writers of the

St.
N. T. % but not in
Sciy/xaTtfew,
Paul.
&TroKpv<f>o<;,
apnW,
:
ycvccrAu,
jaAcl^civ, irapaAoyie<70ai, irucpaivivt ttovo?, <tkio,
owSovAo?.
The
following
are
found
in
the
Pastorals
<bro#ccib-0ai,
xpi/vrctv,
vXowrim.
Pauline Words*
The
Tty9
following are found only in St. Paul
dircurcu, tipalos, cuo),
Iptdfatv, OptafLfJViv9 ucavovv, urorrp, irdOos, crwcu^taXon-o?, avvOdir-
<wiow.
6.
CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE.
apostle, not
briefly specifying Paul's designation as an by men, but by the will of God. Although the apostle's purpose in writing to the Colossians was to warn them against the errors that threatened to creep in amongst them, yet with admirable delicacy, as writing to those to whom he was not personally known, he does not introduce his admonition until he has prepared the way for its favourable reception by a comparatively long introduction, which begins and ends with commendation. 3-8. Thanksgiving for their faith and love, resting on the heavenly hope laid up for them. Mention of the hope leads naturally to the assurance that the gospel which they had been taught by Epaphras was the true gospel, universal and unchangeable, and proving its genuineness by the fruit which it was bearing, both amongst them and in all the world. 9-12. Prayer that they may advance further in spiritual knowledge, and that not speculative but practical, so that their life may be worthy of their profession.
i 9 2. Salutation,
prayer passes insensibly into the positive instruction help to its fulfilment, and furnish a safeguard against the attempts that are made to mislead them. They have already been It is in Him transferred into the kingdom of God's beloved Son. that they have their redemption. 15-17. The pre-eminence of Christ, in His nature and in His In His nature He is superior to all created things, being office.
13
ff.
The
which
will
6]
CONTENTS OF THE EPISTLE
bd
the visible image of the invisible God, and all things having been created through Him, and holding together by Him. 18-20. In the spiritual order also He is first, the firstborn from the dead, and the Head of the Church, all the fulness of God The work of reconciliation wrought through dwelling in Him. Him extends even to things in the heavens. 21-23. The Colossians have their share in this reconciliation, the object of which is that they may be without blemish and without reproof in the sight of God. But this depends on their continuing steadfast in the faith which they have been taught 24-29. The apostle's own qualifications as a minister of this gospel, privileged to know and make known the mystery hidden from preceding ages, namely, Christ dwelling in them. It is his business to proclaim this, and so to admonish and teach, that he may present every man perfect ; and this he strenuously labours to do through the power of Christ 1-7. This effort and anxiety of his extend even to those ii. to whom he had not personally preached, that they may be confirmed in the faith and united in love, and, further, may learn to know the mystery of God. What they have to aim at is to be established in the faith which they have already been taught, firmly rooted in Christ, and living accordingly. 8-15. The apostle has learned (no doubt from Epaphras) that there are amongst them teachers who are endeavouring to propagate
mischievous heresies which would undermine their faith. He does not, indeed, adopt this rude manner of expression, but cautions them against being led astray. The philosophy of which these false teachers make a display is mere deceit, and of human origin it is not a more advanced teaching, but, on the contrary, belongs Ye have already been made full in Christ, to an elementary stage. who is above all these angelic beings of whom they speak, since the whole fulness of the Godhead dwells in Him. Ye need no circumcision of the flesh, for ye have received in Him the true circumcision of the Spirit ; it is by Him that ye have been raised from death to life, and nothing remains to be added to His work, for He has completely removed the bond that was against
you. 16-23. Application of these principles to the practices inculWith their precepts about meat and cated by the false teachers. drink and days they would have you rest in the shadow, as if you had not already the reality. The angel worship which they inculcate is not the outcome of true humility, but of carnal pride in the fancied possession of superior knowledge ; and it leads to a setting aside of the Head, through union with which alone can the body derive its nourishment and growth.
iii.
1-4.
Your aims and thoughts must be more
lofty.
Ye
Ixii
have been raised with Christ, and your life is now hid with Him. Seek therefore the things where He is, at God's right hand. 5-1 1. Sins to b2 avoided not only the grosser ones of appetite,
:
but the more subtle sins of temper, etc. 12-17. Virtues to be cultivated: kindness, love, forgiveness, of which we have such a lofty example in God's forgiveness of us, mutual teaching, and in everything thankfulness to God. Everything to be done in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ 18-iv. 1. Special precepts for the several relations of life: wives and husbands, children and parents, slaves and masters, the motive always being " in the Lord." 2-6. Exhortation to constant prayer and thanksgiving, with request for prayer for the apostle himself in his work, to which
he adds further practical hints as to wisdom in action and

speech. 7-18. Personal commendations
and
salutations.
7.
LITERATURE OF THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.

entire
Commentaries on the
Sixteenth
New
Testament are not included.

Centuries.
and Seventeenth
Alting
1687.
(J.),
Analysis exegetica in Ep.
ad
Coloss.
Opp. AmsteL
Aretius (Bened.), Comm. Morgis. 1580. Bayne (Paul), Comm. on Ep. to Co/ossians. Lond. 1634. Bugenhagen. See Ephesians. Byfield (Nicholas), An Exposition on the Ep. to the CoL
Lond. 161 7, al. Calixtus. See Ephesians.
Cartwright (Thos.), Comm. Lond. 1603. Crellius, Comm. et Paraphrasis in CoL Davenant (John, Bp. of Salisbury), Expositio Ep. Pauli ad
Coloss.
Cantab. 1627
transl.
Lond. 183 1.
Daill or Dallaeus (Joannes), Sermons sur rEpistre aux Col. 3 torn. Gen. 1662; transl Lond. 1672, again Lond.
1
841.
D'Outrein (Joh.), Sendbrief etc. Amst 1695. (In German) Frankf. 1696. Elton (Edw.), Exposition of the Ep. to the Co/ossians . . . in
Sundry Sermons.
Lond. 161 5,
al.
Ferguson (Jas.), A brief Exposition of the Epp. to and Col. Edinb. 1656, al. Basil, 1585. Grynaeus (Jo. Jac), Explicatio
.
the Phil,
7]
LITERATURE OF EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS

Mklanchthon
(Phil), Enarratio Epistolae Fault
briii
ad
Coloss.
Witenb. 1559.
Musculus (Wolfg.X Comm,

Basil, 1565.
in Epp.
ad
Philip.
Coloss. etc.
Olevianus (Gaspar), Notae, etc. Gen. 158a Quiros (Aug. de), Comment. Lugd. 1623. Rollock (Rob.), In Ep. Pauli ad Col. Comm. Edin. 1600. Suchtingius, Comm. in pUrosquc N.T. libros. Eleutherop.
1656.
Schmid
1696, al
(Seb.),
Paraphrasis
super
Ep. ad
Col.
Strassb.
crit.
Suicer
(J.
exeget. theolog.
H.), In Ep. S. Pauli Tiguri, 1669.
ad
Col.
Comment,
See Ephesians. Comm. Opp. Gen. 1619. Zuinguus (Ulr.), Comm. Opp. Tiguri [1545].
Woodhead.
Zanchius
(Hier.),
Eighteenth Century.
See Ephesians. Boysen, Erklarungi u.s.w. Quedlinb. 1766-81. Gleich, Predigten. Dresd. 1717. Hazevoet, Verklaering. Leyden, 1720. Koning, Openlegging. Leyden, 1739, Lutken, Predigten. GardeL 17 18, al. Michaelis. See Ephesians. Peirce (Jas.), A Paraphrase and Notes on the Epp. to the Col. Phil, and Heb. after the manner of Mr. Locke. Lond. 1727, al. Roell, Ep. Pauli ad Col. exegesis. Traj. 1731.
Baumgarten.
Storr (Gottlob
Col. partem
Chr.), Dissertatio exegetica in

[et poster].
Epistolae
ad
priorem
Tubing. 1783-87
transL Edinb.
1842.
Streso, Meditationcs. Amst 1708. Til (Salomon v.). See Ephesians. Zachariae (G. T.). See Ephesians.
Nineteenth Century.
19 the M Speaker's Commentary.
Alexander (Wm., Archbishop of Armagh), Commentary in London Bahr (Felix), Comment, uber d. Brief Pauli au die Kol. mit
;
stater Beriicksichtigung d. altern u. neuern Ausleger.
Basel, 1833.
Barry. See Ephesians. Baumgarten-Crusius. See Ephesians. Beet. See Ephesians.

Bisping, Erklarung.
Munster, 1855.
lxiv

Blebk.
Btf hmer (VV.), Theol.
See Ephesians. Auslegung des Pauli Senisckreiben an die
Col.
Breslau, 1835.
See Ephesians. (Ed. Fr.), Auslegung, u.s.w. Gotha, 1855. Decker, Bearbeitung. Hamb. 1848.
Braune.
Dalmer
Eadie Qohn), Commentary on the Greeh Text of the Ep. of Paul to the Colossians. Edinb. 1855, 1884. Ellicott (C. J., Bishop of Gloucester and Bristol), A Critical and Grammatical Comm. on St. PauPs Epp. to the Philippians, Colossians, and to Philemon, with a Revised Translation. Lond.
1857, al.
Ewald. See Ephesians. Findlay (G. G.), " Colossians " in Pulpit Commentary. Flatt (J. F. v.), Vorlesung. uber d. Br. Pauli an die Phil. Kol.
etc.
Tubing. 1829.
Gisborne
Sermons.
1803, al.
(Thos.), Exposition
and
Application
in Eight
Gotting.
Lond. 1816.
(J.
Heinrichs
H.),
In Kcppfs Nov.
Test. Graec. etc
Hofmann
Philemon.
(J. Chr. v.), Die Briefe Pauli an die Col. u. Nordlingen, 1870. Huther (Joh. Ed.), Comm. u.s.w. Hamb. 1841.
an
Junker
1828.
(Friedr.), Histor. Krit. u. philolog.
Comm.
Munchen,
Kahler
Klopper
(C. R.), Auslegung.

(A.),
Eislehen, 1853.
die Kolosser.
Der Brief an
Berlin, 1882.
LiGHTFOOT (J. B., Bishop of Durham), St. Paufs Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon, A Revised Text with Introductions, Lond. 1875, al. Notes, and Dissertations. Maclaren (Alex.), "Colossians" in The Expositor's Bible. Messner, Erkldrung. Brixen, 1863. Moule (H. C. G.), "The Epp. to Colossians and to Philemon " in the Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges. Camb. 1893. Schnedermann. See Ephesians. Steiger (W.), Der Brief Pauli an die Epheser; Uebersetzung,
Erkldrung, einleitende u. epikritische Abhandlungen.
1835.
Erlangen,
Thomasius
(G.), Praktische Auslegung, u.s.w.
Erlang. 1869.
etc
Watson
1845,
**.
(Thos.), Discourses.
3rd ed.
Calcutta),
Lond. 1838.
Lectures,
Wilson (Dan., Bishop of

Wiesinger
transl.
Lond
Konigsb.
1850;
OlshausetCs Comm. (J. C. Aug.), In Edinb. 1851. Wohlenberg. See Ephesians. Weiss. See Ephesians.
7]
LITERATURE OF EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS
Ixv
Critical Discussions.
See Ephesians, and add the following :
Neandkr, Pflantung
ch. 9,
u.
Ltitung
d. christlichen
i.
Kirche, bk.
iiL
Eng.
Bible,
trans. (Biblical Cabinet), vol.
Sanday
of the
(W.), art "Colossians, Ep.
p. 374. to," in Smith's
Dictionary
in ErscJu u. Gruber's Allgem. Encyclopadie. 1885. Smith (W. Saumarez, Bp. of Sydney, N.S.W.), art "Colossians " in Encyclopaedia Britannica, 9th ed 1877. Wiggers (J.)> " Das Verhaltniss des Ap. Paulus zu der christlichen Gemeinde in Kolossae," TheoL Studien u. Kritiken, 1838,
p. 165.
2nd ed. Lond. 1893. Schmiedel (P. W.), art "Kolossae"
THE
EPISTLE TO THE EPHESIANS.
L
1, 8.
1, a.
SALUTATION.
Paut, a divinely appointed apostle, gives Christian greeting Church at Ephesus. May the heavenly Father^ and the Lord Jesus Messiah grant you free grate and the peace which none
to the
else
can bestow.
It is observable that be does not associate with nauXos. himself Timothy as in CoL and Philemon ; perhaps because it was a circular letter without any personal allusions. Xp. *ltf. in this order with B D P 17, dir&rroXos Xpurrou 'ItjooO. L, Syr-Pesh. Arm. Syr-Hard. Boh. I^crou Xp. K The genitive is not simply a genitive of possession (as with SovA.09, Rom. i. 1), although from a purely grammatical point of view it may be so called. But the term dn-ooToXos gives it a further import This word had not lost its proper signification, as we see PhiL ii. 25, "A commissioned messenger of" in 2 Cor. viii. 23. clearly implies, not merely "belonging to," but "sent by," as "Ambassador of the King of France" obviously means one sent from him. The addition of kclt ivirayrp eov in 1 Tim. L 1 is no See on Rom. L 1. objection to this. 81& OcX^paTos 6cou. These words are also found in 1 Cor. L 1; Their occurrence in 2 Tim. 2 Cor. L 1; Col. L 1; 2 Tim. L 1. sufficiently proves (to those who accept the Pauline authorship of that Ep.) that they are not added in order to enchance the writer's apostolic authority, or to justify his undertaking to instruct a Church to which he was a stranger (von Soden on CoL), nor yet because he has in his mind " the great subject of what he is about to treat, and himself as the authorised expositor of it " (Alford). It simply expresses what was always present to his mind, that his mission was due to the special and undeserved providence of God,
AGK

Compare
1
[L 1
not to any merit of his own. idea is expressed in 1 Tim. i.

-rots
2 Cor.
viii. 5.
The same
by
tear
Imrayrp 0cov.
earlier Epistles the address
dyiois (
= Phil.,
Col.).
In the
is rjj iKKkqatq. (Cor., Gal.,
attributed to
substitution is not to be any incompleteness of organisation, for foteXiprta is used in Philem. 2, and ckkX. does not seem to include the idea of organisation. The use of dyiot certainly gives a more personal
Thess.).
The
colouring to the Epistle as if addressed to the members of the Church as individuals rather than as a body. ol aytot, frequent in the N.T., is always a substantive (except perhaps Heb. iiL 1). It was a term transferred from the Israel of the Old Testament to the Christians as the true people of God, its primary sense, like that of the corresponding Hebrew word, being "consecrated to God" The notion of inward personal holiness becomes attached to it from the thought of the obligation laid on those who are so set apart to a " holy " God ; and God Himself is so called as the object of supremest reverence. The evidence for and against the -rots oSo-ip [iv 'E+ivy], k.t.X. bracketed words may be here summarily stated (for a fuller discussion see Introduction). They are omitted in K B (but supplied In cod. 67 they are expunged by the in both by later hands). To later corrector (who records many very ancient readings). these we must add the MSS. mentioned by S. Basil (fourth cent) and the text used by Origen. They are present in all other MSS., and Fathers and all versions. Their omission, if they are genuine, would be hard to account That they should be omitted in consequence of critical for. doubts as to the destination of the Epistle founded on its contents On the other hand, if the is beyond the bounds of probability. Epistle was addressed to a circle of Churches of which Ephesus was chief, the insertion of the words would be natural. If we have to interpret rots ova-iv *ai irtorotV, k.t.X. the rendering will be: "the saints who are also faithful." This would by no means imply that there might be aytot who were not vurroi, but would rather give prominence to the thought that the apostle did not recognise any as aytot, in the technical sense, unless they were also irurrot. The only difficulty is that toi* o&riv or rjj owry (with hcK\Tj<riq) is elsewhere followed by the name of the place Rom., Cor., Phil.). Of course, if we suppose a blank space to have been left in the original letter the difficulty does not arise. But it is observable that in CoL L 1 the same thought is expressed, roc? ayiW ical irurrots docXôi? iv XpwrnJ, where tow dytbts is to be taken as a substantive (see note there). Others connect ota-tv with dyiW, "who are truly saints 19 (Schneckenb.), or with both dy. and irurr. in the same sense, or understand rots o&rtv as = who are in every place where Tychicus
3, 3]
SALUTATION
xiu. i).
3
Origen's
here.
comes with the Epistle (Bengel, comparing Acts

interpretation,
"those who
are,
'
need only be alluded to
1' morots may mean either " believing " or " faithful, steadfast former sense is adopted by Ellicott, Eadie, Meyer, a/. t on the ground that here in the address to dytbtc alone would not adequately define the readers as Christians, and that if we adopt the other sense we must either suppose the apostle to distinguish the faithful from those who were not so, or to assume that all the professed cLyi'ot were faithful.' It is alleged also that " faithful to
The
Christ" would have required the single dative as in Heb. iii. 2. phrase in 1 Cor. iv. 17, Ayam/Tov #cal vurrbv br Kvpup, being not parallel, since tv Kvpup belongs to both adjectives, Grotius, Stier, Lightfoot, <*/., adopt the other signification, which the word certainly has in Eph. vi. 21 ; CoL iv. 9 ; 1 Tim. L 12; 2 Tim. ii. 2 1 Pet v. 12. If it meant here "believing," says Lightfoot, it would add nothing to what is contained in dytot*. The use of the word with 8cAôic in CoL L 2 is in favour of the latter view, which agrees with the classical use ; but when used in such a connexion as here and in CoL L 2, this presupposes "believing." Since all the Syioi ought to be "faithful," it would be quite in St. Paul's manner to designate them as such, unless he had positive reason to the contrary. Whether we take the word as meaning " believing " or not, we are not to connect it directly with *v Xpurr$ as if =" believing in Christ Jesus" (iricrrcvwrc? cfe), for the adjective is never so construed. *Ev Xpurrf 'Iqo-ov is best taken with the whole conception ayioi teal irurroL. Such they are, but only "in Christ" Compare vi. 21 ; 1 Cor. iv. 17 ; CoL i. 2. "And (from) the Lord Jesus 2. Kal Kupiou "Hrjaoti Xpurrou. Christ." The rendering of Erasmus, " Father of us and of the Lord," is sufficiently disproved by Tit ii. 4, fab 09 vurpoc #cal Xpurrov *Irj<rov rov crorrfjpos rjfiwv. See on Rom. i. 7. 8-8. Praise to God for the blessings of salvation. The granting of these was no new thing in God's purposes, but had been determined before the creation of the world. The object to be attained was that we should be holy and blameless, and with a view to this He has admitted us to the adoption of sons through Christ, in whom
The
we have
received
our redemption.
3. E6\oyt)t4s, according to the analogy of verbals in -roc, means properly, not " on whom blessing is pronounced " (v\ayrnicvos), but
"blameworthy"; opard?, "visible"; vurro "trustworthy." In the N.T. it is used exclusively of God, an so almost always in the Sept In Mark xiv. 61, 6 cv\oyiyro stands alone for "the Blessed One," /.*. God, this being a frequent Jewish mode of avoiding the needless utterance of the sacred name. Here, then, we supply, not c<rr, but c<m. See on Lk. L 68.
/it/iirrd,
"worthy of Mops. Cf.
blessing," Arou'curtfai
teal
tfavfta^coât
aio?
Theo
4
6 6e&s

icai ira-r^p
[L 8
is
too K.
The
natural rendering
" the
God
and Father of our Lord Jesus

apposition (so Jerome,
Christ," 0c<k
and
varrjp being in
Theophylact, Alford, Eadie, Olshausen, Syr., Theodoret, Theod. Mops., followed by Harless, Meyer, Ellicott, take the genitive to depend on varrjp only. It is said, indeed, that the former rendering would require re before #c<u; but cf. iv. 6, cfc 0cos koX irarrjp mumav ; I Pet ii. 25, rov voifUv* Kal ivlo-KOTTov. The expression, "God of our Lord Jesus Christ," is used in ver. 1 7, and the fact that it does not occur oftener can be no objection. See also John xx. 17, " My God and o>5 cov Adyov, your God." <3>c6s p.hr <fc crapKUiOevro*;, irarrfp Theophylact Chrysostom also prefers this view. We have the same combination, 6 0cos *al iraryp rov K., Rom. xv. 6 ; 2 Cor. i. 3, xi. 31 ; Col L 3 (v.l.) ; 1 Pet L 3. " Who blessed us," viz. at the time of our 6 cfiXoyVjaas Vjfia$. becoming members of the Christian Church, or simply on sending His Son. Theodoret well remarks that men in blessing God can only offer Him words that cannot benefit Him, whereas God in blessing confirms His words by deed, and bestows manifold benefits upon us. Koppe strangely understands îa? of Paul himBesides the unsuitableness of this in the initial thanksgiving, self.
W. Schmidt,
Stier).
But
&
icayu>,
iv wooy cvXoyt^ irrcvfLartJcj}. in ver. 15, is decisive against it Blessings belonging to the spiritual sphere to which the nvtvpua. of man properly belongs. This is not quite the same as " referring to the mind or soul of man." Compare Rom. viii. 4, 9, 10, where irvnfjLa is contrasted with o-dp(, and 1 Cor. ii. 15, where it is opposed to *lnjxrj. That these blessings proceed from the Holv Spirit is true, but that is not the signification of the word, whicn characterises the nature of the blessings, not their source. Nor is the meaning " blessings of the Spirit " made out by the passages usually alleged in support of it, such as Rom. L n, " that I may impart some x<Lpi<rfia irvtvpxkriKov " ; 1 Cor. xii. 1, " About spiritual
[gifts] "
; xiv. 1, " desire spiritual [gifts]." Compare Rom. xv. 27, " The Gentiles have been made partakers of these spiritual things " 1 Cor. ix. n, "We have sown ra wv"; x. 3, 4; Eph. vi. 19, " spiritual songs," and 1 Cor. xv. 44, o-w/xa Trvcr/taTucw. Surely, if
"from the
Spirit"
naturally expressed
had been intended, by rov 7rrcv/AaTos.
it
would have been more
Chrysostom interprets the " spiritual blessings " as meant to be contrasted with the material and temporal blessings of the Old Covenant, in which he is followed by Grotius and others. But there is no hint of such antithesis in the context These blessings are not to be limited to the extraordinary gifts of the Spirit, as toot; sufficiently shows. As Theodoret remarks, they include " the hope of the resurrection, the promises of immortality, the promise of the kingdom of heaven, the dignity
a]
Ascription ot
pfeAisfe
fruit
of adoption, or more generally what St. Paul enumerates as the of the Spirit in Gal. v. 22, love, joy, peace, and all Christian
virtues.
The adjective is found several times in the iv tois cwoupoKiois. N.T. in the sense " belonging to or seated in heaven." Sometimes opposed to t& ciriycio, as in John iiL 12 ; 1 Cor. xv. 40, 48, 49; Phil ii. 10; with kA>}o-is, Heb. iii. 1 ; 5o>pea, id. vi. 4 ; irarpis, id. It will be seen that a local sense xi. 16 ; /WiActa, 2 Tim. iv. 18. cannot be insisted on in all these places. The contrasted word ciriycio? also has a transferred sense in Phil. iii. 19, to, cVi'ycia xf>povovvT% and Jas. iii. 1 5, (<r<xf>ia) cViycios, \lrv\uc^. In the present passage ra cVoup. appears to be interpreted by Theodoret as = heavenly things, iirovpavm yap ra Sdpa ravra, and so Bengel, " declaratur to spirituali." But this would be to explain It might, the clear and familiar term by one which is less clear. however, be taken, not as an explanation, but as a further defini-
The article is not against properly be used to mark a class. It is, however, an objection that the phrase iv tois lir. 9 not found elsewhere, occurs five times in this Epistle, and in three of these places has certainly a local signification, viz. L 20, ii. 6, iii. 10. The fifth (vi. 12) cannot be quoted as certainly local, so that it is not correct to say, with some expositors, that everywhere else in Those who adopt this this Epistle the signification is local. interpretation, "in the heavenly regions," are not agreed as to Beza and others refer the words to God (6 iv the connexion. reus ovpavoU cvAoyqo-as), but this is against the order of the words. Meyer takes them as a local definition added to cvA. wr., " with every spiritual blessing in heaven." The blessings of the Spirit are regarded as in heaven, and from thence brought down to us. Compare the description of the Spirit itself as % $o>pca fj eVovpdYtos. It seems more natural to connect the words with evAoyiyo-as (Lightfoot), or rather with the whole clause cvX. iv. v. cvX. Not, however, taking the words as expressing literal locality, v. but as designating the heavenly region in which our citizenship is (PhiL iii. 20), where the believer has already been seated with Christ (ii. 6), "the heaven which lies within and about the "Those spiritual blessings conferred true Christian" (Lightfoot). on us create heaven within us, and the scenes of Divine benefaction are ' heavenly places ' ; for wherever the light and love of God's presence are to be enjoyed, there is heaven." So substantially Harless, but connecting the words (as does Eadie) with cvXoyta. By virtue of our union with Him, and as iv Xpiorw. 1 members of His body. But it must not be left out of sight that
tion of the nature of the blessings.
it
this view, since
may
On
Xpurrf in
St. Paul, see Weiss, Thiol.
Studien . Kritiken, 1896,
6
it is

also in Christ that
if
[L 4
as
=8ca Xptorov
God confers the blessing (iv. 32). Not (Chrys.), as if Christ were merely the instrument
It answers the question, How? as the preceding clauses answered the questions, With what? and Where? the participle answering When ? cv is omitted in a few cursive MSS., and in the edd. of Erasmus, Steph. 3, and Beza; but the omission is too slightly supported to deserve notice, except as accounting for the explanations of some commentators. 4. koOus, frequent in later Greek (from Aristotle) for the more classical xalaircp, " according as," expressing that the blessing was in harmony with what follows, so that it has a certain argumentative force, but does not mean (as the word sometimes does)
blessing realised the election. Generally understood as implying, (1) the choosing out from the mass of mankind, (2) for Himself. As to (i), although the idea of choice from amongst others who are not chosen is involved in the form of the word, this is not always prominent For example, in Luke ix. 35, 6 vio? /iov 6 cicA.cAcyfici'oc (the true reading), we can hardly say, with Meyer, that it is as chosen out of all that is man that Christ is so called (cf. Luke xxiii. 35, 6 rov kov #cA.c#cto5). Here what is chiefly in view is not the fact of " selection " (Alford), but the end for which the choice was made, cTwu ^wU, k.t.A. Oltramare argues from the aorist being used, that the election is an act repeated whenever the call is heard. God, before the creation of the world, formed the plan of saving man (all sinners) in Christ The condition of faith is implicitly contained. The plan is historically realised under the forms of kAô-i? and iic\oy^. Every man who by faith accepts the call is ckA.ckto9. The second element, for Himself, as implied in the middle voice, must not be pressed too far; cf. Acts vL 5* "They chose Stephen" (c cAeayro) ; xv. 22, 25, "to choose out men and send them." See Dale, On Eph. y Lect ii. p. 31. Iv afrr?, not iv avnj>, as Morus, Holzh. (and G, which has cavrf without cv), which would be quite superfluous, but cV Xpurry, as the context also shows. In Christ as our Head, not merely &a t^s cis avrov iriorcws, as Chrysostom. Christ is the spiritual Head as Adam was the natural. Compare 1 Cor. xv. 22, "As in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive"; and Gal. iii. 16, "thy seed o? eon Xpurros." Believers were viewed in God's purpose as being in Christ adopted as sons through Him, it being God's purpose to sum up all things in Him (ver. 10). Comp. 1 Cor. xL 3. vp6 KOTaPoXtjs Klapou. The same expression occurs John airb #car. k. is found several times (twice in xvii. 24 ; 1 Pet L 20. Heb.), but neither expression occurs elsewhere in St Paul It is = airo rw alwiw, iii 9, " from all eternity."
cgcXlfaro.
" because."
The
4]
ASCRIPTION OF PRAISE
ctwu Vjfi&s. The infinitive completes the notion of the verb, expressing the purpose of the iicXoyy iirl rovnp twt ayioi &/uy #cat o/xa)/AOi, Chrys. Cf. Col. i. 22, &ro#caTiAXacy ira/xurrijo'ai v/ia?, K.r.X. The usage is quite classical 5yt<>4 and tyutfioi give the positive and negative sides of the idea, In the Sept it afuu/xos properly means " without blame." is used of sacrificial victims, in the sense "without blemish "; the word fi&po* having been adopted by the translators as the rendering of the Hebrew for " blemish, " " spot," on account of its resemblance in sound to the Hebrew mtim. In this sense (jlS>iuk occurs in 2 Pet ii. 13, omAot teal yiuo/ioi. The adj. /ia>/io? is used in the signification "without blemish" in Heb. ix. 14 ; x Pet i. 19. St Paul uses the word here and v. 27, also PhiL ii. 15 (true text) and CoL i. 22. In the last-mentioned place AveyKXryrovs is added to dytbv? teal dftw/tow, and this favours the interpretation " blameless."
is
In
Phil.
ii.
15, also, dfiwfia
seems
parallel to a/M/iirroc,
and
the opposite of fuafirjrd in the passage Deut. xxxii. 5, which is there alluded to. On the other hand, in Eph. v. 27 the reference to mrZkjw tj pvrCSa in the context favours the other sense. However, as there is no reference to a victim in any of these three places, there seems to be no sufficient reason for departing from In Jude 24 either sense would be the proper Greek sense. suitable, but in Rev. xiv. 5 "blameless" is better, for the connexion is "in their mouth." The word is so understood here by Chrysostom and Theophylact, ayioc 6 rip wxotco* pcrtyw afmyioe ik 6 car& to? fiiov ApcirtXiprroc, Theoph. ; a/xa>/xos 6 &vwt\rprrov ftlov furuav (fyw, Catena), Chrys. to be understood of the actual spiritual Is this ay. jcal a/i. and moral state (sanctification), or of righteousness imputed Harless and Meyer strongly maintain the latter (justification)? view, which is also adopted by Mouie on the ground of the context, while Harless even thinks that this alone agrees with The fact appears to be the very opposite. apostolic teaching. The ultimate end of God's choice, as of Christ's work, is sanctification. Compare Phil. ii. 14, "Do all things without murmurings and disputings, that ye may be blameless and harmless children of God a/toyta (true text), . . . among whom ye are seen as lights in the world." In v. 27 words similar to the present are used of a future ideal not yet attained. So Col. i. 22 compared with 21, 23, 28, 29 ; 1 Thess. iv. 7, "God hath called us, not Iirl &Ka$ap<riqi, but iv dyicur/M." Compare the same Ep. v. ag ; 2 Thess. ii 13, " God chose you from the beginning cfc o-ornjpiav cv dyuur/if mwparos." And very distinctly Tit ii. 14, " Gave Himself for us, that He might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto Himself a people. . . . zealous of good works.* Indeed, as Eadie observes, "the phrase 'holy and without blame' is never onoe
cW
; ;
[I.
applied to our complete justification before God. Men are not regarded by God as innocent or sinless, for the fact of their sin remains unaltered ; but they are treated as righteous." It is no objection to this that this perfection is not attained here, nor need we modify the meaning by understanding "as far as can be." What is here specified as the purpose of the &cAryc<r0at must be the ultimate purpose to be achieved, and that is perfect holiness. This is the view adopted by Chrysostom, Theophylact, Calvin, and, amongst recent expositors, Alford, Ellicott, Eadie, pherson, Oltramare, Stier. It is confirmed by the following words; nor is it really against the subsequent context ; see on vlotfco-uu Karcvwirtov aurov, *"*. not merely before men, says Chrysostom; ayiuxruvrp' {tyrci rjv 6 rov kov 6if>0a\ft6s opû iv dyrfirp has been variously joined with lcA.caro, with dy. *ai It is, however, too far removed from &p~, and with vpoopC<ras. le\caro (although Macpherson regards this as no objection) but it is less easy to decide between the other possible connexions. In support of the connexion with the preceding words it is alleged that the words iv Aydiry stand after the clause to which they belong in iv. 2, 15, 1 6, v. 2; CoL ii. 2; 1 Thess. v. 13 (Lightfoot). But in all these cases the words preceding are verbs, or express a verbal notion (iv. 16), and are such that they could not be placed after iv aydirg. Alford strenuously maintains that, " in the whole construction of this long sentence, the verbs and
Mao
precede their qualifying clauses," e.g. w. 3, 4, 6f no reason why the qualifying clause should not be placed before its verb here, if the writer's purpose so Alford adds that this qualification of the preceding required words is in the highest degree appropriate, love being the element in which all Christian graces subsist, and in which all perfection Nevertheless, the connexion with the before God must be found. adjectives "holy and blameless (or without blemish) in love," appears less natural than with the verb, "having in love foreordained us." It is fitting, too, at the beginning of the Epistle that God's love should be the first to be mentioned, and very fitting that emphasis should be given to the love which moved Him so to preordain, by placing iv Aydwy first So Chrysostom and the other Greek comm., Jerome, and, among moderns, Bengel, Harless, Meyer, Stier, Eadie, Ellicott, Soden, a/. 5. irpoopuras gives the reason of jc\earo, it is logically prior but in the counsels of God there is no priority or order in time.
participles
8, 9, 10.
.
But
this is
Compare Rom.
viii.
30, ovs irpowpurcv tovtovs koX fcdAco-cv.
The
verb appears not to be found in any writer before St Paul The prefix irpo has reference only to the future realisation, and does not of itself indicate that the act was vpo Karafiokr}* icdo/iov. These words belong closely ci utofajiar 81& *l. X. cis afrrdr.
X.
5]
"unto adoption through Jesus Christ unto Him as His is vlos yvi/o-ios, Son by His nature ; we are sons only by adoption through Him. Cf. Gal. iv. 5, " God sent forth His Son . that we might receive the adoption of sons"; also GaL iiL 26, "Ye are sons of God, through faith, in Christ Jesus"; and Heb. ii xo f. But this vlodwia is not yet complete ; we are Still looking forward to its completion, ulolcow Aircjr&exo/xcvot rrjv
together^
sons."
Christ
&vo\vrpwriy rov atbfULTo? ^fuuv, Rom. viii. 23. The figure of adoption is borrowed from Roman law ; the practice was unknown eis avrov most simply and naturally joined with to the Jews, vto0c<tta, " adoption unto Him," viz. as His sons. It is putting too much into the preposition to find in it the idea of inward union, or to compare with 2 Pet i. 4, " partakers of the Divine nature." avrov is obviously the Father, not Christ, through whom the adoption is. V. Soden, however, argues strongly that thus efe avrov would be superfluous, as vlo$. is a fixed terminus for the relation to God. The prominence of hr avr<3 in w. 3-14 makes the reference to Christ more natural The aVaxcoWAaiuKraordai iv Xp., ver. 10, is the realisation of the irooopifciv cfe avroV. Col. L 16 is a close parallel. According to Jerome the word evoWa was icard iV rf&oKiai'. ,, coined by the Sept. "rebus novis nova verba fingentes. It means either "good pleasure, purpose," cv &oklv, "as it seems good to"; or "good will," according as the satisfaction is conceived as in the action, or as felt towards a person. The latter is the common signification in the Sept, but it also occurs there in the sense of "purpose," Eccles. xi. 17, ^ evoWa avrov evoouî/o-crat. Where the context does not point to a person towards whom the satisfaction is felt, the former meaning must be adopted; cf. Matt xi. 26, ovrws fycycro cvoWa ZfxirpocrOcv con. Here, then, it corresponds to 17 ftovkrj rov O&rjfiaTos avrov, ver. 1 1.
1
In the Sept eCSoxla is used frequently in the Psalms to render the Hebrew rdts6nt and, with the exception of a passage in Cantichs (where it corresponds to Tirtah), it is not found in the other canonical books at all. Their usual rendering of the Hebrew word is dexro't. 1 It cannot, then, be fairly said that "the translators" exhibit "purpose" or "discrimination" One translator often u**s it, and somein their employment of the word. times uses 0{\7)fia when eteotda would have been more conect; the others never. In Ecclus., however, ettoicla occurs fourteen times. Fritzsche (on Rom. x. I) has discussed the meaning of the word at length. The verb eb&OKttp (which is an exception to Scaliger's rule about the composition of verbs) is found only in later Greek writers, Polybius, Diodorus, Dionys. Hal., in the signification "to choose or think fit (to do a thing), 1* sometimes with the idea of being glad to do it, as 1 Thess. ii. 8. Greek or /titim, "to be content with something, or writers also said e68oK& pleased with some person." The construction cMokcIv run originated with the Alexandrian writers (1 Mace. x. 47 ; cf. Matt iii. 17 ; I Cor. x. 5, etc).
nw
The word
In the
is
rendered
$i\rffut several
times in the Psalms, including xxx*
5, 7.
latter place
Symmachus
stib*itiite etiSoxla.
IO
They
[J.
also said cv&okcip re, a usage not followed in the N.T., and eft rtra (2 Pet. i. 17) ; but in the meaning of the verb the Biblical writers do not differ from the later Greek. The significations of the substantive follow those of the text. It means first voluntas, as in Matt xi. 26, then " contentment, " Ecclus. xxix. 23, "delight," and as in Sept most frequently "good will." See on Lk. ii. 14 and on Rom. x. 1.
6. cts JiraiKOK tv}s &6{ns With a view to the x<p iT0? afrou. praise of the glory (glorious manifestation) of His grace. The interpretations which make S6(rj<s a mere adjectival attribute, either of Araivoc (Grotius) or of x<*p (Beza), are weak and inadmissible.
1%
Chrysostom gives the truer view,
Iva
y rip gapcro? avrov oofa
" His grace." We are so accustomed to use the word " grace " a technical religious sense, that we are prone to forget the simple meaning which it so often has, "undeserved bounty," "free gift," oupcay Tfl avrov x*PtTC9 Rom. iiL 24; kot hcXoyyp^ âptros, Rom. xi. 5 ; \^rC core o-ccraxr/xcFot, Eph. it 5. " Herein lies the magnificence, the glory, of God's work of redemption, that it has not the character of a contract, but of a largess " (Lightfoot). This glorious manifestation (cf. Col. L 27) fills the mind of the apostle. He repeats in ver. 7 " wealth of His grace,*' and in ver. 12 "praise of His glory," and again in ii 7, more emphatically still, "the exceeding wealth of His grace." Hence the verb Xaptofuu has its signification " to grant of free favour.
in
fjs
ixapinmv
qpas.
fc is the reading of K
adopted by Lachm. Tisch. 8 Treg. Westcott and Hort

the reading of
D G K L and most
A B Aeth. Syr., and is h is

fj
cursives with the Vulg.

difficult attraction.
It
was
probably a resolution of the somewhat

substitution of fc for kv $, especially context, is very unlikely.
The
when
Ik is so frequent in the
The attraction is accounted for by the construction x*P XapirovV, like 6yairqv ayairavf ii 4. Compare x<*P(ra? aLPîCrâh Dem. 306. 28.
XapiTow, by the analogy of verbs in 6, means "gratia afficere. ,,

Cf. xpwoo*, irvpyoio, Oavarow, /topôcn.
Admitting
this,
two mean-
ings are possible, according as die x</>'? bestowed is taken subjectively or objectively, that is to say, as expressing the state of the individual or the grace of God. Chrysostom takes the former view, ov fiovov afiapT7)ftdT<i)v din/AAacy, <L\Aa koX {ircpaaTOv? broirjerw,
" rendered us loveable," followed by Theodoret, Com. a Lapide, "gratiosos nos reddidit," and most Roman Catholic interpreters, some of whom even use this as an argument for " justitia inhaerens." Chrysostom says, it is as if one were to take a leper and change him into a lovely youth. Thus God has adorned our soul and made it an object of beauty and love. The partic. KcxapiTw/tcFo* has this sense in Ecclus. xviii. 17. Clem. Alex., loosely quoting Ecclus. ix. 8, substitutes it for cvpopôv of the original (Pata\ iiL 1 1).
I.
7]
But both the prevailing meaning of x^P1 * *n St Paul, and
more
particularly the context,
seem
decisive for the other sense,
for ver. 7 states in what respect God iv t$ tJ/cht., ixaP^TwrV being joined to this by lv . the leading idea of the passage is
And
the undeserved goodness of God. With the reading ifc there can hardly be any question that this latter meaning is alone possible. It resumes the cvAoyipm? 17/xas r$ Xp. of ver. 3. tV t$ ^yairrÛ^. The MSS. D* with the Vulgate add v? avrov, a manifest gloss. The expression is not found elsewhere in the N.T. of Christ, but in the Apostolic Fathers it is used of our Lord, eg, Ep. Barn. 3, 8v fp-oifMWv iv rcj? rfyam^fUvio avrov* 7. cV <p ( = Col. L 14), not * &a or per quern ; it has a certain argumentative force, and can hardly be given a different meaning " In him, in whom." Rom. iiL 24, 81a from the before r<$ jjy. rip diroAvr. r$s iv XpumZ 'Iiprov, though parallel in substance is not parallel in construction, since here is closely connected with It is not apart from Him, but in Him alone, that we have xofMv.
our redemption.
fgo/tcr.
D, Boh. read Irxpfuv, which B, Boh. have
in Col.
14.
iV
dwoXurpAMiiK.
The
article
you know of, r^v vpoo-aytoyyv, ii. On tarokfopuei* Meyer remarks, " the redemption, namely, from God's wrath and penalties." . . . "The purchase price was His (Christ's) blood."
Other commentators also say that the word " does not mean simply deliverance, but deliverance effected by the special means of purchase. Even where the term is used in the New Testament, without any accompanying statement of the price paid, the idea of a ransom price is still present " (Macpherson). The usage of the word and of its cognates by no means bears out this statement. First, as to the simple verb XvrpoDr. In the active it means primarily " to release on receipt of a ransom." The idea "redeem by payment of a price," is expressed by the middle. Quite similarly, when Homer speaks of the ransom of Hector s body, it is Achilles who is always said Xtfei*, while Priam is said X6w$cll In the Sept. the middle \vrpofo$ai is of very frequent occurrence, but not always with the idea of a price paid. On the contrary, it often means simply " to deliver." Thus it is used of the deliverance from Egypt, for which no price was paid. Isaiah (zliii. 3) says, " I give Egypt As the Lord liveth, who hath redeemed for thee." Compare 2 Sam. iv. 9, He bath redeemed my soul out of all adversity "; Ps. cvii. (cvi.) 2, " from the hand of the enemy." So the English word " redeem " sometimes means " deliver," as in Romeo andjuli$t% "Before the time that Romeo come to redeem me." In the N.T. \vrpodr6ai occurs thrice: Luke xxiv. 21 ("to deliver .Israel"); Tit. ii. 14, " . . . from all iniquity " ; I Pet. i. 18, " . . . from our vain conversation." The substantive \6rptaau occurs in Plut. Arat. xi. in the sense of " redempIn the Sept. it is used Lev. xxv. 48 of the " right of tion " (of captives). redemption, and Num. xviii. 16. In the Psalms it occurs thrice in the sense of " deliverance," viz. cxi. (ex.) 9, and exxx. (exxix.) 7. In the N.T. it occurs three times : Luke i. 68, Hroliptw \&rpuxrw t$ Xaw afroG ; ii. 38, rob TpoctoxofiAvoit Mrpumr 1*/1}A ; Heb. ix. 12, ahnrlav Mrpttaw cvpd0fFOt
appears to indicate that which 18 (but see Heb. xi. 35).
Whom
12
[1.7
\vrpurijt is used Acts vii. 35 of Moses simply in the sense of "deliverer." The verb awoXvrpoOp signifies properly, not "to redeem" (XvrpowrBat), Epist. [Phil.] op. Demosth. p. 159, bat to release on receiving a ransom. Afi<pCKoxop . avWafiup xal tAi iox&rai dvdyxas ext$tii dveX&rpdxje rak&mor hvfa, Plutarch, Pomp. xxiv. 4, p. 631 D, Ij/Kv ft ical 6vya-Hjp Plato, Legg. zi. 919 A, 'Arrurrlov . .. . cat toXK&p xPIpAtuv dTeXirrputd-rj. Utotxip &t ixQpobt aix/ioXcfr-ot* Kexctpwfiipovi droXirr/xfa-p. Polyb. zxii. 31. 8, jrai xpwrlov <nj%pod diofioXoyrjdcpros vvep rrjt yvraucfa, 1jycp afrrip dwoXvrpfowp (vid. also ii. 6. 6). Lucian, of Achilles, xpûdnap AXlywp row The verb occurs twice in the Sept. viz. Etcropos PCKpir dvoXfrrpuxrai. Ex. xxi, 8, of a master parting with a female slave (E.V. "he shall let her be redeemed"), and Zeph. iii. 1 (where the Hebrew word means "licentious," but was mistaken for one similaily written, which means
'
&To\&rpuxrii is rare. Rost and Pahn give only one reference in Greek writers, viz. Plutarch, Pomp, xxiv. 2, p. 631 B (speaking pirates), atafidrup ^ye/iorurwr dprayal xal vSXeuv alxpoXibrup dwoof the Xvrpoxrtit ("holding to ransom") 6pei8o* fjcav rip 'Pw/iaiw* rryeporlat. Thayer adds other references, Joseph. Antt. zii. 2. 3, wXcidvuv ft $ rerpaKoattap rakdrnop tt}i diro\vrpib<rewt yenjawfleu <pafUvunr, raura re <n/n?xtpet Philo, Quod omnis (of Aristseus paying the soldiers for their prisoners). probus liber, 17, p. 882, dwoypodt droX&rpuxrip Aafupos iavrop iicxfrfyra.ro, Diod. Fragm. lib. 37. 5. 3 (Didot's ed. ii. p. 564, of a slave who had agreed with bis masters for the purchase of his freedom) ; Scaevola, <f>6daai HfP droXtirptaalp d*ora6ptaacp. In the Sept. it occurs only in Dan. iv. 30, 6 xpoôs pov rijf droXvrpcta-ew 1j\$ct i.e. of Nebuchadnezzar's recovery. As far as usage goes, then, it would seem that if we are to attach to droX&rpoKTis the idea of ransom, the word will mean "holding to ransom'* or " release on receipt of ransom," not " payment of ransom." In the New Testament the word occurs ten times, and in some of these instances it is only by a forced explanation that the idea of payment of a price can he " brought in. In Heb. xi. 35, " were beaten, not accepting t^p dro\6rpwrt It is " not acceptthe meaning connects itsell easily with the classical use. ing release." If the idea of price is brought in, it can only be apostasy ; but those who offer the droX. are the captors. Again in Heb. ix. 15, dxoXifrpuxrit tup rapapdaewp is nearly equivalent to KaOaptrpos tQp d/iaprtwr in The transgressions were put away ; there was deliverance from them. i. 3. In Luke zzi. 28, " lift up your heads, for your droX. draweth n'gh," there The opinion that the price is the destruction of is no suggestion of a price. Jerusalem is very forced. In Rom. viii. 23, vlo$e<rtap dre*rfox4tA*v 0C r^p dvoX&rpuxriP rov <rutparol, whatever interpretation is given of the latter words, they do not suggest dvoXvTpdxrcut, Eph. iv. 30, Nor does the idea of a price paid. There are no doubt other passages in lend itself readily to this view. which it is easy to introduce the idea of payment of a price, but as the only ground for insisting on introducing this in every case is an erroneous view of the primary meaning of the word, further proof Certainly, however, the word implies each instance. 1 is required in The slavery from which we are deliverance from a state of slavery. " Captive to the law of delivered is a slavery to sin, Rom. vii. 23. sin"; it is not death as a punishment, but spiritual death as a state. Christ gave Himself for us, to redeem us from all iniquity, Tit. ii. 14. were redeemed by the blood of Christ "from our vain conversation,"
t
'
" ransomed "). The substantive
W/
We
On
u, Versbhn.
droXtfrpwts compare Westcott, Heb* pp. 295, 296 ii. 222 ff.; and Oltramare, in loc.
Ritschl, Rcchtf.
3 ;
7]
1 Pet. i. 18. Release from punishment is so far from being the chief idea, that it sinks into insignificance in comparison with that of deliverance from
without which it could not be. Here there is an insuperable difficulty applying the idea of ransom by payment of a price. To whom is the ransom paid ? We were not in slavery to God, nor is release from punishment to be obtained by any sort of payment of ransom. Hence the notion of early writers, that the ransom was paid to Satan. So Origen : droXtfr/wa-iff is ransom of those who are captives and in the power of the enemies we were subject to the enemies, the ruler of this world and the evil powers under bim ; the Saviour therefore gave the ransom for us. This was at
sin,
in
least logical.
Grotesque as this conception may seem to us, it kept in view the truth it is release from the power of evil that is the main thing ; and this was rather put out of sight by the later view, which gave most prominence to the release from punishment But this, apart from deliverance from sin, is what is truly impossible ; whereas given deliverance from sin, though suffering may remain, one ground for it has ceased, and it will be felt more as chastisement than as punishment
that
slaves
cf. I Cor. vi. 20, vii. 23, Christ, whose are there called because He bought us with a price, surely did not purchase us from God. So in the O.T. God is said to have purchased His people (Ex. zv. 16, etc.). See Dale, LecL v.
For the notion of purchase,
we
This suggests a different figure, that of the idea of Christ's blood in the N.T., see Westcott, Epistles of St. /oAn> p. 34 sq. He argues that " in accordance with the typical teaching of the Levitical ordinances, the Blood of Christ represents Christ's Life (1) as rendered in free self-sacrifice to God for man, and (2) as brought into perfect fellowship with God, having been set free by death. The Blood of Christ is, as shed, the Life of Christ given for man ; and, as offered, the Life of Christ now given to man, the Life which is the spring of their life." The thought of Christ's Blood (as shed) includes all that is involved in His Death, and more, for it " always includes the thought of the life preserved and active beyond death." See especially John vi.
SiA too atpo/ros afrrou.
sacrifice.
On
53-56.
It is observable that in the parallel passage
CoL L
14, the
text).
words 81a tov

ttji>
aificLTos
avrov are not added (in the genuine
&+<nv tSp du.apTT))uTjK (afiapTiwv, Col.).
further definition of the diroXvrpoKrif so carefully
Why was this added both here
and in CoL ? Lightfoot (on CoL i. 14) suggests that this points to some false conception of the diroX. put forward by heretical teachers, as we know was the case with the later Gnostics, who applied the term to their own formularies of initiation. Thus
Irenaeus (L 13. 6) relates of the Marcosians, Sia rqv airokurpuaiv ical Aoparov? yivi<rQai t<3 Kpirg, and (i. 21. 4) TcXctav &TTokvrfHooriv avrrjv rrjv ivtyvioatv tov appyrov /tcyctfoi*. Not that any direct historical connexion between the Colossian heretics and the later Gnostics is likely, but the passages (and others cited by Lightfoot) " show how a false idea of avoXvrpwrie
ixpa-njToxs
cW^
14
[LJB
esoteric doctrine of angelic powers." term of which St Paul is particularly nard -rft itXootos, k.t.X. fond Paley calls it one of his " cant " words ; " wealth of grace," " wealth of glory," " wealth of wisdom." Not to be resolved into " His rich grace " ; but " the great fulness of His bounty." The wealth of His grace, Le. bounty, is shown by the great price paid for our ransom ; cf. ii. 7, and Rom. ii. 4, tov vXovrov rrp xpôrron/roc
would naturally be associated with an
avTov.
The verb is transitive, for the attraction of 8. fa circpur<rco<rK. the dative, very rare in classical writers, is not found in the N.T. For the transitive use of irepiotrcvw, cf. 2 Cor. (not Rom. iv. 17). ix. 8, Swarci 6 cos iraxray \dpiv ircpurcrcvcrat (2 Cor. iv. 15 is uncertain) ; 1 Thess. iii. 12. The meaning then is, "which He made The AV. with to abound" (overflow); a<f>66vm ^fc^ce, Theoph. Calvin, at. f takes the verb intransitively, and therefore ijs as attraction for #, " in which He hath abounded." third construction is possible, viz. that fc depends directly on vcpuro-cvctv, since
A
;
ir.
tivos
may mean "to abound

some
texts
;
ccvowtlv aprw,
but
WH wcpMnrcvovrcu)
The
in."
Cf.
Luke
xv.
17 (ircpur. . .
iva
muro?
âpccrfuxros ircpuro-cvys, Ignat. Pol. 2 ; so Beza, " qua redundavit " or, as has been suggested (Ellicott, p. 164), ircpurcrtiW might mean
" to make an abundance o" agrees with the context

two words is Greek writers.
first-mentioned rendering best
ck iraafi 00+19, ical ^pomâci. The distinction between these clearly and pretty unanimously stated by several
Aristotle (Eth. Nic. vi. 7) says that <ro<f>Ca is while <f>p6vrf(rts is irepi ra avQpwirgva teal *-cpt &v tori /fovAciSowr&u ; and in Magna Mbralia, L 35, <f>pov. is vepl ra crv/i^cpovra. Philo (De Prom, et Poeru 14) says ao<f>Ca is wpos Otpamtav 0cov, ifrpovrjo'is, irpos avSpunrtvov fiiov fiioun/cnv. So Plutarch (Afor. p. 443 F) says that <f>p6v. is deliberative and practical in matters which concern us ; and Cicero {Off. i. 43) states that it is "rerum expetendarum fugiendarumque scientia," while <ro<pia is " rerum divinarum atque humanarum scientia," which last is the common definition of cro^t'a, i.e. in Sextus Empir. and [Plato] Def. 411. <t>p6vr)<rL<; in the same place is defined (infer alia) otalccric k*& fy Kptvoficv ti irpatcrtov #cai ri ov irparrcov. It is clear from this that <f>p6vr)<ris cannot be predicated of God ; nor is this refuted by the fact that in Prov. iii. 19 and Jer. x. 12 it is so used. It is very fallacious to call each individual translator of an O.T. book "the Seventy," and to regard such an occasional use as any evidence as With to what was possible to an original author like St Paul. more reason might it be alleged that "discretion" might be properly predicated of God, because it is so used in the English Version In both instances a word was wanted to balance in Jer. x. 12.
rtfuorrarcuv,
tw
^0]
GOD'S PURPOSE
crojUa in the parallel clause (in the parallel passage in Jer. 1L the word used is <rwrts). 1 Kings iiL 28 is irrelevant Solomon is
This is a literal there said to have possessed ^pdfipw &cov. rendering of the Hebrew idiom, expressive of the highest degree of prudence. Nor is vaxra ao<f>ia applicable to God, for iraau is not " Summa " (Wahl, at.) ; it expresses, as Harless remarks, never intension, but extension ; watra Svya/u? = " every power there is," CoL L 1 1. vaau This is not invalidated by vvofiovrj, "all possible patience" (id.). vaau 4ovcrta, Matt xxviiL 18; vaxra <Jur<aAcia, Acts V. 23; or mora diroSoxî * Tim. L 15 ; or the classical ir. avdyicr) v. kivowos, etc. In all these was is extensive not intensive. To say of God that He has done something vdoy cofta, would imply that, conceivably, the wisdom might have been only partial, rj vo\vwo(ki\<k o-wjUa, iiL ro, is wholly different, being the very varied manifestation or exercise of His wisdom. Hence, whether we connect the words with lircp. or with ywpuras they are to be understood of believers. This is confirmed by the parallel, CoL L 9, Iva vktfptoOrJT ttjv Myvwaw rou tfcAi/ftaroc avrov iv wd<rg aoifUa teal awlatu Moreover, the main idea in the context The connexion with frcp. seems is the knowledge of the Christian. decidedly to be preferred to that with yvwpura^ against which is the consideration that the making known of the " mystery " is not the proof of the abundance of grace, but of its abounding in the Meyer notes the climax from particular matter of awfUa koX <f>p. the simple fc tyaplTwrw 4f"*5 * fc iwepfoorevcrev ct? rffias. 9-11. God hath made known to us His purpose to sum up alt things in Christy whether they be things in heaven or on earth. 9 9. ywpLcas, i.e. " In that He made known, ' cf. CoL ii. 3. -rft jMrr^pioK. must be on our guard against importing into this word (as is done by some expositors) the meaning of the English "mystery," as in Shakespeare's "Mysteries which heaven will not have earth to know." It signifies simply " a truth once hidden but now revealed." The truth may be " mysterious," in the modern sense, but that is not implied in the word (so Lightfoot also, who, however, refers to 1 Cor. xv. 51 and Eph. v. 32 as Lightfoot thinks instances of this accidental idea ; but see post). the term was borrowed from the ancient mysteries, with an intentional paradox, as the Christian " mysteries " are freely communicated to all,, and so the idea of secrecy or reserve disappears. (Note on CoL L 26.) In fact, it is almost always placed in connexion with words expressing revelation or publication. But there is no need to suppose that St Paul had the heathen mysteries in his mind when he used the word. It appears to have been much more frequent colloquially than we should have supposed from the extant works of classical writers. In these the singular is found
We
[I.
once only, and that in a fragment of Menander, " Do not tell thy In Plato, TheaeU 156 A, the secret (jiwmqpiov) to thy friend." plural is used of secrets, " will tell you the secrets of these," but with allusion to the iiwrrrjpia in the context There are, however, other sources from which we may infer that it was not an uncommon word in the sense "secret," viz. the Apocrypha, the Hexaplar translators, and Cicero. In the Apocrypha we find it in Tob. xil 7, 11, "It is good to conceal the /*. of a king"; Judith ii. 2, " He (Nebuchadnezzar) communicated to them the secret (fwxrnjpiov) of his counsel" ; 2 Mace. xiii. 21, "disclosed the 'secrets' to the enemies"; frequently in Ecclus., and, as in Menander, in connexion with warnings against revealing a friend's In Wisd. xiv. 15, 23 the secret, eg. xxiL 22, xxvii. 16, 17, 21. word is used of heathen "mysteries," E.V. "ceremonies," but in vi. 22, "I will tell you, and will not hide 'mysteries' from you." In two places in Proverbs the Hexaplar translators have
/tvonypiov,
"A talebearer revealeth secrets," fivamjpia

ii.
xi.
13 Sym.,
XX. 19 Theod. So in Ps. xxv. 14, ft. xvptov; Theod. "secret of the I^>rd." It occurs several times in Daniel, where the AV. has
words
Cicero is fond of using Greek 19, 27, 29. and no doubt the words he uses were familiar. Writing to Atticus he says, " Our letters contain so much mysteriorum that we usually do not trust them even to secretaries" (iv. 18). And in another place he writes a short passage entirely in Greek, because it is about some private domestic matter, saying, "illud ad te p.v<TTLKwTpov scribam," i.e. more privately (vi. 4). Ausonius again has "Accipe congestas, mysteria frivola, nugas" (Ep. iv. 67). 1 From all this we may conclude that fiva-njpiov was an ordinary, or In the N.T. the same rather the ordinary, word for " a secret" meaning holds, only that there it is always (except in the Apocalypse) "a secret revealed," and hence is applied to doctrines of revelation. Indeed, Rom. xvL 25 might almost be taken as a definition p.
"secret," as
18,
in his letters,
' '
CoL L 26). Xpovovi aici>vtot? <raiyrjfivov <f>avpa>0VTOs 8k vvv ( Such doctrines are the "mysteries of the kingdom of heaven,"
Matt
xiii.
1 1 (cf. ver.
in parables,
Luke
viii.
35), which were communicated by the Lord 10. There is not one passage in which
Lightfoot mentions two in which, this meaning is not suitable. although the signification of the word is the same, there comes in from the special circumstances of the case the accidental idea of mysteriousness. They are 1 Cor. xv. 51 and Eph. v. 32. In There is, indeed, one neither place is this contained in the word. place in which other writers suppose this idea to be contained in But the true interpretation of the word itself, viz. 1 Cor. xiv. 2. that passage is, " He is indeed telling secrets, but to no purpose, 1 In the Liturgies, when the priest is directed to pray " secretly," jwrut&s ia the word used.
10]
GOD'S PURPOSE IN CHRIST

19
It is not because no one understands This is, on the contrary, a polite concession, as in ver. 17. In the Apocalypse the meaning "secret" still holds good, " the secret of the seven stars," " the secret of the
for
no one understands.
that they are pLvorrjpia.
woman. 9
The one doctrine which St. Paul frequently calls the mystery of the gospel was the admission of the Gentiles. It was for this that he was in bonds. too 6c\^jh&tos afrrou. Gen. of the object, the secret concerning
His will
icaT&
iV
cftSoKiaf afoou.
Not
to be joined to /xvar., which
would be tautologous with tov

qualifies yvwplaas here
(ver.
5).
0cA. avr.,
as irooopto-a? in ver.
xlix.
Compare Book of Enoch

11
but with yvcopuras. It cv& = purpose 5. 4, "according to His
good
11
pleasure.
10. irpolOrra. The prefix in irportOtaOai is local, not temporal. " Set before oneself = to purpose " (Rom. L 1 3), or " before others (Rom. iii. 25). These three are the only places where the verb occurs in the N.T., but the substantive vpoOtai? is frequent = purpose, either Divine or human (Acts xL 23, xxvii. 13 ; 2 Tim. iii. 10. Cf. irpoxcipt^ccrâ*, Acts iii. 20 ; vpoaipeio-Oau, 2 Cor. ix. 7). " With a view to a dispensation belonging cis oUoKOfitay, k.t.X. olcovopua means either actual to the fulness of the seasons." administration of a household, etc, or the office of an administraIn the latter sense the English "stewardship" correctly tor. represents it ; in the former, which is the meaning here, though u dispensation " in its original sense well corresponds, it does not suggest to the reader the idea of " house management," which is contained in oucovo/u'cu This is founded on the conception of the Church as God's household, 1 Tim. iii. 5 Heb. x. 2 1 ; 1 Pet iv. 17 ; hence in this Epistle believers are called oucciot tov cov, iL 19. In the Gospels in five parables God is figured as otxoSctnronp, eg. Matt xx. 1, n. In classical writers the word olcovopxa extended its meaning from the management of a household to that of a Thus Aristotle says that as household management is a state. sort of kingdom of a house, so a kingdom is oUovop.ia. It was also applied to systematic arrangement or management generally, as of the topics of a speech, of the parts of a building, etc. The kingdom of God had its own obcovopia, it involved a place or system of administration, the officers or obcovofioi of which were the apostles and the ministers, 1 Cor. iv. 1 ; Tit L 7. For the later use of the term as specifically = the Incarnation, see Lightfoot's note, Eph. L 10; Col. L 25.
;
V. Soden maintains
viz.
stewardship.
its
The thought
that olx. here has the same meaning as elsewhere, is that the object of the Divine purpose
otear6/iof.
should come to
achievement through an
Until the ouowopUa

began the plan rested in God.
[t 10
Who the olxorSfun is, is not said in the text; Moule more suitably probably, in the first place, God Himself (iii. i). regards the Son as the UkohIhos, the " purpose" being that He should be the manifested Dispenser of the period of grace*
t. irXijprfpaTos
twk Kcup&K.
In substance equivalent to vA. rov
XpoYov, as in GaL iv. 4, but includes the conception of a series of Kcupoi, or seasons, the last of which is marked by the mission and
work of the Messiah, so that now the

L 15,
Tren-krjpaiTcu
series is
dosed.
Cf.
Mark
Kcupos includes the notion of fitness or 6 *cupos. propriety. The xaipoC are conceived as spaces filled with events. Since a *. is not properly the object of an ohcovofua the genitive vkrjpufiaTos is not gen. of object but of nearer definition ; cf. *purts
fjLya\r}$ rjfxipas,
Jude
6.
AraKc+oXoukrcuriai, " to gather up into one," seems to be an explanatory infinitive supplying at once the content of the nwrrijpiov, the object of the cvoWa, and the object reserved for the otic But as a matter of construction most easily connected with Some commentators prefer connecting the nearest, viz. ohcovofua. with vpot$To, others with fxxxmjptov. In classical writers it " chief point," cf. Heb. viiL 1 ; and both K<f>d\aiov means K<f>aXai6iii and aVcutcâAatow mean to sum up, summarise. So Rom. xiiL 9, to yap ov /Aotxcvccts . . lv tovtiq r$ X&ytf Avar
Ki<f>a\aiovTau
irpos
So
in
a fragment of
so
Aristotle, foaxcôAaiua'aatfcu
defines the substantive AKaxcâAaiWts, "Rerum repetitio et congregatio quae Graece dicitur &v. . . . et totam simul causam ponit ante oculos" (Inst. vL 1. 1). Compare the late Latin recapitulo^ formed in imitation of the Greek. Thus there is no ground for assigning to the prefix the signification "again," as if there was in the word a reference to a bringing back to a former state, " in Christo omnia revocantur ad 01^01" (Tert Monog. 5) (Meyer, a/.). The Vulgate, indeed, expresses this idea to the exclusion of KcâAaiof, " instaurare."
avdfjLyrja-tv.
And
Quintilian
has the same rendering in Rom. xiii. 9, we cannot conas meant for anything but a verbal equivalent avar here has the same force as in dvayivwTKUv^ avaXoyCfarOai, avafierptiv, 1 viz. the idea " one by one. ' So Lightfoot, who remarks that in the interpretation alluded to Tertullian found a serviceable weapon against Marcion, who maintained a direct opposition between the work of the Demiurge and the work of Christ. Chrysostom asks,
But as
it
sider
it
ri lortv avaK<f>akat6<ra<r6cu ;
and
replies, crvvdifrau
When he after-
wards Says, irdvras inrb fxtav ijyayc KufxiXrjv, we may Suppose that he only meant a rhetorical play on words, since the verb is not derived from kcôAi/, but from Kc<f>dkaiov. The middle voice is appropriate as implying the interest which God Himself has herein ; cf. cfe avroV in 1 Cor. viiL 6 Rom. xL 36.
X.
U]
K'BDL,
GOD'S PURPOSE IN CHRIST
19
This is the reading of tt| yi\%. Theodoret, 1 Oec and some cursives, and is adopted by Lachm. Tisch. Tree. WH. But K, most cursives, have 4r rots ovp. t with Chrys. Theodoret/ Theophyl. The variation in case after the same preposition has frequent parallels in classical writers. ttjs yfy On the other hand, the usual contrast is tw rott otpcwoit and (iii. 15 ; Col. i. 20, in which latter place there is a poorly attested reading M, perhaps from this passage). It must be admitted also (with Harless) " upon," with rofr otiparoit, that there is something strange in the use of for the nature of the case as well as the antithesis forbid us to understand it as "above the heavens."
rk twl Tott otpavotf sal rk 4*1
AG
M,
t& irdrra shows that it is not the uniting of things in heaven with things on earth that is expressed. These are named in order to express the greatest universality. Hence also here, as with vaxra 17 KTtcro, Rom. viii. 19 sqq., there is no occasion to introduce any limitation except such as the context demands. To the spiritual as to the poetic eye all nature seems to share in what strictly and literally belongs only to intelligent beings ; nor is it hard to see The introduction that there is a profound truth in such a view. here of this view (new in St Paul) of the extension of Christ's work to things in heaven, is accounted for by his having in his mind the teaching derogatory to Christ, which is more distinctly referred to in the Ep. to the Colossians. The things in the heavens were understood by Locke to mean the Jews (those on earth being the Gentiles), in support of which He is followed by interpretation he refers to Matt xxiv. 29. Chrysostom understands the Schoettgen, Emesti, and others. angels, while others interpret the words of the spirits of the just of the O.T. (Beza and many others).
Chrys. etc. probably not a gloss but a result of "parablepsy," The convene substituassisted by the greater familiarity of the latter word. tion would be wholly unaccountable.
11. 4aXi|p4#i)|isv,
4kX^0i)|icv,
ADG,
KB cursives generally, Vulg.,
koi obviously is joined with the verb cV ical cVXnpSOi)fMK. "for whom also," not "we also," as if it were *<k 17/ms. The kAôo?, properly a lot, purpose was " also " carried out then, like the English "lot," "a portion allotted," or "portion" It is common in both senses in the Sept as well as in generally. It is not = " inheritance." classical Greek. The verb kAôou**
"to choose by lot" or "assign by lot," hence in the passive, to In this sense Chrysostom, be assigned, as " K\r)p<a$rjv Sovkrj." Estius, etc., understand it here, Kkypov ycvo/Acpov îas ccAc'aTo,
the word being chosen, according to Estius, to indicate that the was not by our merit, and then trpoopurO&res being added to exclude the idea of chance (Chrys.). The Vulgate agrees, " sorte vocati sumus," and many modern
election
interpreters.
But
this
would be
entirely without parallel in the
20
[I.
language of St. Paul, with whom it is God's gracious will that is the determining source of the cKAoyij, not any 0cta rvxnMany interpreters adopt the rendering, "we were chosen as His lot or heritage," deriving the meaning of the verb from the second sense of ickijpos. So Bengel, Alford, Ellicott The sense is good, but this meaning of icAiypoa>, in which the idea of chance is lost, is not sufficiently supported, and the idea of " heritage " is without justification. On the other hand, the interpretation, " we have obtained KAqpos" (*Aj}pos iw dyiW, CoL L 12), is unobjectionable in point of language ; for Kkrjpovv tiki is classical, e.g. tv Uaxrry CKAi/poxrav, Thuc. vi. 42, and it would be quite in accordance with analogy that Kkr^pova-Oai should be used in the sense " to be assigned a portion," cf. <f>0ovovfiat, 8iafcovov/Acu, Matt xx, 28 ; irun-cvo/zai, Gal. ii. 7. It is probably in this way that we are to explain the usage in later Greek writers, exemplified in In the Aelian, Nat hist v. 31, and Hippocrates, 1287. 15. former passage the serpent is said to have his heart near his throat rip Kap&Cav *cicAtyxi>T<u, k.t.A. In the latter, Hippocrates In says, irActova fifi\f/(.fxoipirfv tj Tifirjv KtKkrjpwcrOai tt/v Txyqv, both cases the verb seems to mean, not simply "to have," but "to have as one's portion or ickfjpos." The sense suits well, as it corresponds to the notions fcAqpovo/ua and ircpuroiipri? in ver. 14, as well as to the cV rots iwovpavtois, ver, 3, and coincides with that of Col. L 12 above referred to; we may compare also Acts xxvi. 18, rov Aa/fciv . . , tckfjpov iv roU lyytcur/ievocs, and xviL 4, vpoaKkr)pio$7ia ay T<j IlavAy. The selection of the word is explained by the O.T. use of xAiJpos, which made it appropriate for die possession allotted to the Jewish Christians (so Meyer, That these are intended here, although tym? Soden, Eadie). is not expressed before ver. 12, seems probable from the close Besides, if v/ui? be included here, logical connexion with ver. 1 2. vv. 13^, 14 would be a weak repetition. This specification seems kcitA t?)k 0ou\*|k tov OcX^fiaros afirou. meant to exclude all idea of any merit *of the Jews in their
,
KXrjpowrOau
and between the respective
to the distinction between ftovkrj and 0c\ty*a, verbs, scholars are at issue. The best supported opinion is that (3ovkr} involves the idea of purpose and deliberation, 0cActv and Oikrjpua denoting simply will. So
As
Ammonius states that ft. is used only of rational beings, 0. also of irrational. Thus, as Grimm says, 0cAo> would express the will that proceeds from inclination, /?ovAo/uu that from deliberation. Cf. Matt i. 19, "not willing ($4ko>v) to make her a public example, was minded, Ifiovkrfiri? etc. ; 1 Cor. vii. 36, S 0eAi irotc/rcu ; id. 39, Oikta as the less definite may be xiv. 35, ei 8c Ti fjuaBuv Oikownv. used there, but povkofiat would be quite suitable. Some scholars, however, reverse this distinction. Here the combination " counsel
12, 18]
THE SEAL OF THE
SPIRIT
21
of His will" seems intended to express emphatically the absolute self-determination of God. Compare i Pet iii. 17, c OtKoi rb BfXrjfia tov eov. 12-14. We Jews had even in former times the promise of the
Christ, which has now been fulfilled ; but the same blessings are notv extended to you the Gentiles, and as the earnest of your inheritance, ye have been sealed with the Holy Spirit 13. els to choc, k.t.X. It seems best to take tov* irpor)\iruc6ra<; as the predicate, according to the analogy of cfc cV. in ver. 6 and ver. 14, and cis Iwaivov hotrp avrov parenthetically. The article is necessary, since what has to be expressed is not that the yptU were to have had the attribute of having previously hoped, but that it was their special privilege to be those amongst the Christians who had had a previous hope. And if irporjkir. is the subject, what reason can be given why vpoopurB. cfe cV. & should be confined to them, seeing it applies equally to the fyis faowravrts ? Besides, this would be only a repetition of w. 4, 5. The chief objection made to this interpretation is that the distinction between Jewish and Gentile Christians does not come in before ver. 13; but this is only an assumption, as the exposition of We translate, therefore (with Harless, ver. 1 1, just given, shows. Olsh. Soden), "That we, to the praise of His glory, should be those who have before had hopes in Christ" Meyer's interpretation of tov* vpoyX. as " quippe qui " is inconsistent with the article. To what does the vpo. refer? irpocXiri(ci> might, of course, mean simply hope before the event, as vpoopifa implies an 6>rfuk before the object of it appeared ; and so ElHcott, Meyer, understand the word here, explaining the perfect as indicating that the action still continues; but this seems fallacious; Ikvfaiv continues, but not vpocXvfotv. It seems better then, with Beza, Bengel, v. Soden, to understand the -rrpo, as referring to the time prior to the conversion of the heathen. Whether it be understood thus or as " before the coming of Christ," it is appropriate to the Jewish Christians as But some expositors deny that distinguished from the Gentile. there is any such distinction here (De Wette), and understand But the kcu fytcls of ver. 13, wpo. as "before the Parousia." together with the AKownurcs which is antithetical to vporf\v. f seems decisive. Compare Rom. xv. 8, 9, Xcycu 8c, Xptarbv SuLkovov ytycvipr&u ircpiro/AJ/s xnrkp dA.i/0ctas covf cfc rb /fc/fatoxrat ra? hrayytXtas twv variptav* tcl b\k tOry vircp, cAtovs (t\e, not vtrlp dXrfituK) Soido-ai tov ov (not might glorify, as AV. and RV.). "In whom ye also." There is much 18. cV xal ftpcis. Beza, Calvin, al., difference of opinion as to the connexion. But if iryxw/Xir. is to suggest the supplement, supply ÂiriWc
22
it

would be
irp<yr)\iriKaTt
[X.
13
which
is
inadmissible.
Meyer and
Alford supply the substantive in accordance with the current expression iv Xptortp clvou, " in whom ye also are." Not only is this extremely tame, but, considering the pregnant meaning of ctvcu in this phrase, it is hardly possible that it should be omitted, not having occurred in the previous clause. Erasmus, k Lapide, The objection of Meyer and Harless, a/., supply cKAiypwoV*Ellicott, that eVA^p. would thus be limited to Gentile Christians, though it formerly referred to both Jews and Gentiles, loses its force if the interpretation of ver. 1 1 above given be adopted. But it is awkward to go back so far, and a much simpler solution is that iv$\s connected with eo-^payiV6V> the second cv being a resumption of the first, as in RV. with Theodore Mops., Bengel, Eadie, Ellicott, Soden. Thus the thought cv Xpurrfa which governs the whole section 3 to 14, is with the second cv <$ once more emphatically brought forward, while Trtorcwavrcs, as the necessary antecedent of co-pay., is given its proper prominence as The repetition distinguished from the prior condition (Uovo-avrcs. of u/m? before wurrcuowrcs is so far from being necessary that it would obscure the importance of that word. tok \6yof ttjs &\i)0cias. The word whose content Cf. CoL L 5. is truth, i.e. the gospel, koJ ifrxrjv sermo veritatis quasi extra ipsum nulla esset proprie Veritas (Calvin), in apposition with to cvayyeXtov rfjs awrrjptas v/juuv, the gospel, or good tidings, whose subject-matter was salvation. " In whom I say, when ye also believed, ye were sealed." cv &, not to be taken with mar., for which there is no parallel in St Pau\ but with <nf>p. Meyer, however, with Calvin, Beza, <?/., refers iv <p to to cvayy., comparing Mark i. 1 5, jtiotcvctc cv t< cvayycAup, and Gal. iii. 26, meme iv Xp. 'I. But it is much more natural to understand it as cv Xpiomp ; and, of course, if the account just given of the first iv <S be adopted, this alone is possible. Compare
<j>
Acts
xix.
2,
ci
urcvfia
ayiov
ikdfiert
-rrvo-avTcs
" when
ye
believed."
fotpo/yio0T)Tc.
teal
Compare 2 Cor. L 22, 6 *ai o-^payurot/xevo? rjpas Sows tov Appapuva tov irvcvfuiros. The figure is such an obvious
one that
it is needless to seek for its origin in any allusion to circumcision, called a seal in Rom. iv. n, or in the xrrCypjara of certain worshippers of heathen deities. In later writers o-^payt's
used simply for "baptism"; but there is no reason to suppose such a reference here, which would be too obscure. t& wr. Ttjs fir. "The spirit of promise," i.e. which had been promised, on Kara cWyy. avrb IXdfSopxv, Chrys., who, however, also gives a different view, as does Theoph. fj on i cVayycAtaf tioOrj tj or* t^v twv /acAAovtuv dyaftov cirayycAiav to rrv, /3c/?atou The latter interpretation must be rejected, because the word *vcv/ta
is
X.
14]
THE SEAL OF THE
SPIRIT
23
does not contain the idea of /fc/UaKric. "The Spirit which brings a promise " would be a possible interpretation ; but it is not the Spirit that is the immediate bringer of the promise, and, moreover, the other view agrees better with the connexion. r$ dyfy added with emphasis, "even the Holy Spirit" 14. appafMr, a Semitic word (Heb. f&y), which probably (we may say certainly) passed from the Phoenicians to the Greeks, and from them to the Romans in the sense of our word " earnest," a portion of the purchase money given to ratify the contract, and so as a pledge of full payment In the N.T. it is found only here and 2 Cor. L 2 a, ver. 5 (in both places typ. tot urcvjiaros). It is to be noted, first, that the earnest is of the same kind ds the full payment Compare Clem. Alex., EcL Proph. xiL p. 982, ovrc yap woy KKOfiurfi$a ovtc irairo? vorcpov/icv, dAA' olov dppafiwva. . . . vpo<rtt\rj<t>a}tcv. So Irenaeus, "hoc est, pars ejus honoris qui a Deo nobis promissus est," v. 8. x. To this corresponds fj impxfi rov xv. Rom. viiL 23. " The actual spiritual life of the Christian is the same in kind as his future glorified life ; the kingdom of heaven is a present kingdom ; the believer is already seated at the right hand of God," Lightfoot, who adds that the metaphor suggests and doubtless was intended to convey another idea, namely, that
the recipient of the earnest money pledges himself to accomplish his side of the contract os is attracted into the gender of dpp. according to a usual idiom ; cfc Mark xv. 16, rrp av\ip o fori tt/xurcopiov, and GaL iii. 16, x<p cnrcpfuiri <rov os core Xpurros; also, o is, however, found in perhaps, 1 Tim. iiL 16; Col. L 27. B L, Athan. Cyril, Chrys., and is adopted by Lachm.,
WH.
cl AiroXfrptxriK
*rijs
ircpuroiôwt.
ircpuroicTv
means properly
It is so
" to cause
both in
to remain over, to preserve alive, save."
used
it
rjv
classical writers
and
in the
means to acquire
for
oneself.
Sept In the middle voice So in N.T. Afcts xx, 28,
ircpiaroiipraro 81a rov atfiaro? rov iStou.
The substantive ircpMroiiyo-is occurs once in the Sept in the sense of survival, 2 Chron. xiv. 13,
teal imcov AWioira &ar firj clpat ^v avroU wipuroirjo'iv. This appears to be the sense intended here by the Sept "for the redemption of those who live." Most commentators compare the expression Xa&? cfe xcpuroc^criv, x Pet iL 9, which is taken from MaL iiL 17, iaovrai /toe . . cfe v., where cl? v. represents the Hebrew that is elsewhere rendered ircptovcrto?; so RV. " God's own possession," It is a serious objection to this that v. by itself has not the meaning " people for a possession," or "God's possession." In 1 Pet it is Aaos, and in Malachi ftot, that determines the meaning indeed, as St Peter is quoting from Malachi, his words do not supply a second instance of even this limited use of the word, nor any at all of N.T. usage.
;
24
[L 15
to evade this objection by making avrov refer to Another very strong as well as 8of175, which is very forced. objection is from the context It is our inheritance that is in question ; it is of it that the earnest is received, and we should naturally expect that what follows ck would have reference to the complete reception of it. Instead of this, the interpretation quoted supposes the figure entirely changed, so that, instead of receiving an inheritance, it is we that are the possession ; a figure proper in its place, but here involving a confusion of thought which we can hardly attribute to St Paul. Augustine seems to have understood the word as = "haereditas acquisita," perhaps only following the Latin version, " acquisitionis." So Calovius, "plena fruitio redemtionis haereditatis nobis acquisitae," a meaning of w. which is
Trcptir.
Meyer attempts
unsupported. Beza remarks that we have to distinguish two deliverances or diraXvrpciKrci? ; the one which is past and finished, the other, the complete deliverance to which we have to look forward in the hereafter. The former, he says, might be called " docendi causa," diroA.vrpa><ri9 cXcvflcpawrccDS, and, correspondingly, the latter <far. Trcptiroiiprcw?, " liberatio vindications or assertionis." His explanation of the construction, not the meaning of w., seems to be essentially the same as that of Theodore Mops., Theodoret, and Severianus. They, however, understand ir. as 17 wpo$ tov 0cdv oUctWis. Thus Sever, says we are redeemed tva irtpuroirfOCtfj^y jccu ohcuoOwixv t<3 c<3, so that the meaning is, " With a view to our full recovery of our privileges as sons of God." But this is open to the objection just now brought against the RV., that t k<p required to be expressed. We are compelled, therefore, by the necessity of the context, to understand 7repiiroti;<ris of our acquisition ; only it is not a thing possessed, the object of AiroA., but possession or acquisition, the result of the complete diroX. (so Soden, and, in substance, Macpherson), " With a view to a complete redemption which will give possession." In the three other passages in which v. occurs in the N.T. it means acquisition or saving, in accordance with the classical usage, viz. 1 Thess. v. 9, crwnjpias; 2 Thess. ii. 14, &dip; Heb. x. 39, ^v^s (cf. Luke XXL 19, lerfrrtvOt T&s \frv\a^ vfuav). 16-10. Therefore having heard of your faith, I thank God, and I pray that ye may attain a deeper knowledge of the glory of the inheritance, and of the mighty power of God who confers it upon you. 15. Ai&touto. Connected by some with w. 13, 14, only, />.,
" Because ye also are in

is
Christ,
and have been
sealed," etc., since
it
only in ver. 13 that the writer turns to the Ephesians. But better connected with the whole paragraph, w. 3-14, " because this blessing which we share is so mighty." So Oecum., 81a ra <iiroKci/*cva dya$a
X.
16]
THANKSGIVING AND PRAYER

This
2$
ro%
&p$vxs wxotcvooti koI pioxxri ko\ 8ta

v/ias.
is
ra iv rots oWfoprofio'ot?
rr&x$ai
be preferred, if only because &a tovto is too emphatic for so limited a reference as the former. It is used in transition to a new paragraph in Rom. v. 12; 2 Cor. iv. 1;
to
last passage is closely parallel to the present " I also," does not express co-operation with the readers in their prayers, or with others, of whom there is no hint ; nor is it " I who first preached to you " ; but it simply notes the transition from v/m9. It is exactly parallel to *<u ^fteis in CoL i. 9, where the plural is used because Timothy is associated with Paul in the
9.
CoL L
The
icdyd.
address.
AkoAtos is certainly in favour of the view that the Epistle was not to the Ephesians, but to readers to whom Paul had not personally preached ; and this appears to be confirmed by the similar expression in Col. L 4. On the other hand, it must be observed that the same expression occurs in the Epistle to Philemon (ver. 5), Paul's beloved fellow-worker, except that the But this makes all the difference. participle is present tense. Theodoret explains dxovo-a? here as referring to the progress the Ephesians had made more recently ; and so many moderns. But against this is the fact that in w. 17 ff. this is prayed for. frequentative force of the participle cannot be admitted The frequentative force of the aor. ind. is only the result of its indefiniteness (Luke i. 55 ff.). The time of the participle is defined by the principal verb. " = " among you," but in sense tty naff dpas irionr. " Apud vos equivalent to r. w. v/mof, CoL L 4. Compare Acts xvii. 28, r&v Kaff ifias wotrjru)y; xviiL 15, vojwv rev xaff vfia?"the law that obtains among you"; xxvL 3, twv jcora *Iov8auns iOwv. This periphrasis for the genitive seems to have been frequent in later Greek; cf. Aelian, V. IT. iL 12, 17 icaT avrov apery, Diod. S. L 65. ij Korh Tffv &pxqy &rd0c<ris (laying down the government). There seems, therefore, no good reason to say, with Harless and Ellicott, that the phrase here denotes the faith of the community viewed objectively (the thing in itself), in contradistinction to 1? -. vfiuw, which expresses the subjective faith of individuals; or with Alford, that it implies the possibility of some not having this faith (whereas all are addressed as viotoC). At most, perhaps, we may say that the form of expression was suggested by a view of the different classes of believers. That 17 v. ifuov could have been used
written,
is
shown by CoL L
ifanr
Iv
4.
'lf)<roij. Jr indicates that in which the faith as etc expresses that to which it is directed, " fidem in Christo repositam." The absence of the article before marks the binding of vCaris ivr. Kvpup into one conception.
tC Kupfa
rests,
teal tV fcyfoipr <ri)r fit rrat tov frytovt rifw dydnjw is omitted by K*ABP, Orig. Hicr., inserted byK'DGKL, Syr. Boh., Chrys. Th
.
26
[X.
16, 17
insertion is supported by the parallel, Col. i. 4. Internal evidence is strongly in its favour, as riarir elt rodt bylovt would be an unexampled expression (Philem. 6 is not an instance). The omission, too, is very easily accounted for by the passing of a copyist's eye from the first to the second H\v. Lachxn.
and Westcott and Hort and RV. omit the words, but Tisch. Treg (not mg.)
retain them.
16. od irauopai euxapurr&i', k.t.\. cyxapurrciv, in the sense "giving thanks, being thankful," belongs to the later Greek (from Polybius onward). Its earlier meaning was " to do a good turn to," and hence to " return a favour," to be grateful
is usually joined directly with cfy., while pvctav v. subordinate, as specifying the further direction of the vxaptcrrCcu But the following Iva seems to require us to take ftv. v. as the principal notion, " I cease not while giving thanks for you to make mention," etc It is not clear whether /ivciov irotcurfcu, which also occurs ver. 16, Rom. L 9, Philem. 4, means "to remember" or "to mention." It is used in the latter sense by Plato (Protag. 317 E; Phaed. 254 A) and other writers. Cf. Ps. ad. 4 ; Sept fiv. iv. rwv Bav/taauov avrov. For iirl rwv irpo<rvx**v cf. Rom. i. 10 ; 1 Thess. L a,
od
muojMu
is
made
DcKLP;
rototywot.
tftQw (after fu>etar) of the Vulg. Syr. (both)
Text Rec.
1
is
om. by
K A B D*,
added by
Boh., Compare the readings in
Orig.
Chrys. have tyrtr after Thess. L 2, where fytfr is om. by
K# AB.
If this passage were to be considered without 17. Iko. reference to the parallel in CoL L 9, the rendering "in order that" would be tenable (though it would be strange to say, "I mention you in order that"). But in Col. the preceding verb is verb of asking must be followed by words expressalrovftcvoc ing the content of the request And there is an abundance of examples to show that in this and similar cases Iva has almost or Thus we have Scur&u tva in rather entirely lost its final sense.
Dion.
HaL
:
ciiri fva, kcAcvciv, ciriT/>6rciv fva.
Abo
irouacrtv
ix.
with 0c\civ, e.g. Matt Mark VL 25, 0cAa> Iva

(JLaOrjrjj
vil
/toi
12,
Safe
dVra
av
rrjv
K<f>akrjv
O&rjTt Iva 'Iudvvou :
30, owe rfitktv Iva tis yv4>: x. 37, 80s ijfuv Iva:
Iva ytvrjrai
:
dpjvcrov tcS
cf.
xviii. 6,
crvfi<f>pt
Matt X. 25, avr<p Iva KpCfuurOjj :

IKayyrrov
/toi
JSct
Iva
hrl
(v\ov
iv.
irddy,
:
Barn. Ep. V. 13:

(rvvyjOtla
iaTiv Iva, 1
xviiL
:
Cor.
Itmv
Iva
awoXvaw, John
39 fu<rBos iva, 1 Cor. ix. 18. In modern Greek va is used as a sign of the infinitive "to.* Winer quotes from the Confessio Orthod. irpcTrci va, Xcycrcu va. The usage above illustrated indicates the transition to this complete weakening of the original force of the word. 6 decs too Kupiou, k.t.X. Many of the early commentators in order to avoid the obvious sense of these words, of which the
I.
17]

made use
27
against the Divinity of Christ, interpreted &>a the Divine nature, Kvpios the human. Thus Theodoret, cov fiev <*>s avOpwirov, iraripa 8c o>? cov, 8oav yap Similarly Athanasius, 8oav tov rip Btiav <f>vcriv wvo/xao-cv. /Aovoycv^ tcaXti But this would surely require avrov to be added, and the distinction would be out of place in this context The apostle refers to the relation of God to the Lord Jesus Christ as an encouragement to hope for the fulfilment of his prayer. More inadmissible, and only worthy of note as a singularity of interpretation, is the view of Menochius, who takes tov k. r). 'I. X. as a parenthesis, or that of Estius, "Deus, qui est Domini nostri Jesu Christi pater gloriosus." These devices are unnecessary, since the Lord Himself calls God "My God," John xx. 17; Matt xxvii. 46. The expression is neither more nor less expressM ive of subordination than this, "the Father is greater than I, which, as Pearson shows, was understood by the Fathers as spoken They did not hesitate to call the of the Divine nature of Christ Father the Source, Fountain, Author, etc., of the Son or the whole
Arians
as
signifying
Divinity.
6 TraTîp
cf.
Ti}s
o<St]s.
Acts
vii.
2; "the
"The Father God of glory," 1
cf. Jas. ii. 1 ; and irarrjp XepovPlp. &6(rp, Heb. ix. 5. The interpretation "author or source
glory,"
whom belongs glory," Cor. il 8; "the Lord of twv oltcripfuov, 2 Cor. i. 3 ; also
to
tenable,
would give a good sense.
So Chrys.
of glory," if it were 6 peydXa rjfuv
oc&okcos &ya$<L
expressions,
not proved. Poetical such as Pindar's aotSoV irarrjp (of Orpheus, which, moreover, is not = " creator," but "inventor"), are not to the point, nor "hath the rain a father"? in Job xxxviii. 28; cf. xviL "Father of spirits," Heb. xii. 9, proves nothing, for the term 14. there is introduced only as an antithesis to " fathers of our flesh," and besides with the word "spirits," "father" preserves the double notion of "creator" and "ruler," as indeed the. context there implies. The nearest parallel is Jas. i. 1 7, irarrjp iw farrow, where "the lights" are personified, and the notion of control is not absent But there is no parallel to this in St Paul, whose usage is shown by the passages above referred to. Alford's view is that as God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, God is the Father of the glory of the Godhead which shone forth in the manhood of the Son.
possibility of the interpretation is
But the
Ufa by Lachm. pointed 8(fo as an Ionic conjunctive. The sense points WH. a conjunctive, but the form appears to be known only as epic. give it in the margin, but in the text adopt fyfy, a later form for the opt. dolij. B has dtp, to which WH. give the second place in the margin. If the Ira were truly final, the optative would create a difficulty, being proto
perly used after the present, when the attainment of the object (Rost and Palm).
is
doubtful
28
itkcu|jui

<ro+ias,
k.t.X.
[J-
18
According to Eadie,
Ellicott,
Meyer,
here suitably to the subject On the absence of the article cf. Gal. v. 5, 16. But these instances, where m>. is used as a proper name without a genitive following, are not parallel It is better to understand with RV. after Chrys. Theodoret, a/., "a spirit of wisdom," etc; cf. 2 Tim. L 7, "God did not give
definitely the
Spirit, characterised
Holy
you
viii.
trv.
SctAta?,
dAAa
8wa/xca>s
teal
&yarrqs
irv.
icat o-ax^povt<r/xoi)
;
"
Rom.
*v.
15,
w.
SovAcia?; Gal.
vi.
1,
TrfxôTrjros
Rom.
xi. 8,
of wisdom here is the effect of the Holy Spirit, is naturally understood but not expressed. ao<fUa appears to be the more general term, &roaAtj^t? having reference specially to the " mysteries " revealed to believers, not to the gift of prophecy, to which there is no reference in what follows, and to which the apostle did not attach so much importance (see 1 Cor. xiiL, xiv.). Harless, followed in substance by Eadie, regards 6.WOK. as the medium by which ao^Ca is communicated. This relation would be more naturally expressed by chrofcaXv^rca*
Karavvfrux; (Sept).
That the
spirit
iv Jmyrtkrci afaou, i.c, of God, as appears from afrov in w. 18, 19, hrtyvwrts, "full knowChrist being first referred to in ver. 20. ledge," "major exactiorque cognitio," Grot ; see 1 Cor. xiiL 12, apri yLVuxrKit) K fUpovs, t6t Sc iirtyvwrofiai xa$m kcu tircyv(ixr(hjv. This is generally joined with the preceding, some taking fr for cfe (a Lapide, Bengel, a/.), or as = " by," which reverses the Meyer relation of the knowledge of God with the gift of <ro<f>ta. and Ellicott understand it as marking the sphere or element in which they were to receive wisdom and revelation; Stier and Eadie, connecting the words especially with ?ro*., suppose them, while formally denoting the sphere, to indicate virtually the material of the revelation. If this punctuation be adopted, the But all difficulty disappears if, with latter view seems preferable. (after Chrysostom and Theoph.), we connect the Lachm. words with what follows. The abruptness of irc^DTMr/jtwow is
WH.
much softened by the previous mention of the means. Indeed, the bold figure of enlightenment of the eyes of the heart seems to require some such definition as iv myvwr^ which then naturally precedes, because of its connexion in sense with cUroita18. ircttmoplfoiis rods tyOaXpoifc, k.t.X.
tion.
difficult construc-
probable explanation appears to be that the words are in apposition with irvcvpa as the immediate effect, and so dependent on 8w?7, in which case, however, according to the sound observation of Bengel, "articulus praesupponit oculos jam 1 praesentes," we must render "the eyes of your heart enlightened,' irt^. being a tertiary predicate (so Harless, Olsh. Wold, Schmidt,
The most
X.
18]

It is also possible to regard ?<.
29
Soden).
as by anacoluthon
referring to tyuv, rot* 6<f>0. being the accusative of nearer definition. Somewhat similar examples of the accusative being used where
the dative has preceded, and might be expected to be repeated, are found in classical writers, c*g. vrc<m poc Opdvos doWvoW ickvawnv apriox 6viparuv9 Soph. EL 479. The sense would be 'enlightened as to the eyes of your heart, " i.e. "so that ye may be enlightened." Such an irregularity of construction is intelligible where it makes the sentence run more simply, not where it makes it obscure. third construction is adopted by Bengel, Eadie, a/. f according to whom the *-</>, agrees with 6<f>0. 9 the three words together being an accus. absolute, "the eyes, etc., being enlightened." That is, the words are taken as equivalent to fl-câma/ilwy tSv The possibility of this is questionable. Bernhardy 6<j>0a\fiwv. (P- z 33) maintains that absolute accusatives of participles should
be banished from Greek grammars (cf. Jelf, 581. 1). Acts by Bengel, is not in point, being a case of anacoluthon (Winer).
xxvi. 3, cited
opSfat.
This reading rests on decisive authority.

Vulg. Syr., Orig. Chrys. etc.
It is that
ABDGKLP,
6+6aX|iods
of
tt
The T.R.
duwoiai
is
sup-
ported only by a few cursives, Theodoret and Oecum.
napStas, "eyes of the heart"; cf. Plato, Rep. foxis fyyux. Aristotle in Eth. Nic. calls cWonp, Clement's r^<^\0rja'ay rjfiuty oi t6 Ofifia. rfj? faxy* 0^- I2 IO )* It is to be 6<f>$. Trp KapSias may be an allusion to this passage. observed that xapSt'o, with the ancients, was not only the seat of emotion, but of thought and moral perception. Here clearly it is as the seat of knowledge that it is referred to, hence " eyes of
ti|s
p.
533 A, to
rrjs
the heart"
See the contrary
state,
the darkening of the heart,
Rom. L
21.
Ti$ ton? 4 Ams. Not "of what nature," nor "quanta," but simply "quae," which includes "qualis, quanta et quam certa." iKvU rip kA., the hope which belongs to or is implied in our calling, i.e. not merely the subjective emotion produced by our calling (taking rfc kX. as gen. of efficient cause, Meyer, 11.), the knowledge of which does not require a special grace, but certainly including the content of this hope, not the object in itself, but as a conception (compare the use of our word " ambition," " what is his ambition?" i.e. the object of it as a mental conception). From the nature of the case the certainty is assumed. Compare CoL L 5, "the hope laid up for you in the heavens (-Tit ii. 13),
Heb.
vi. 18, irpoa6\6fjLvoi rrfv
fiaKaptav
it
;
ikiritia.
it is,
The
kXtJcis gives
the guarantee for
this,
and includes
;
in fact, to this
that believers are called
iirl
wolac* ikwlcri KacXyfuOa,
hope Theodoret
30
ti's

6 itXoOtos
ttjs
[L 19
S6(i)s
tv)s
KXi)poKOf&io$
adrou.
Not
to
be
weakened into "rich glory" or "glorious inheritance."

full
"What a
grandiose cumulation, picturing, as it were, the weightiness of the matter!" Meyer. Glory is the essential attribute of the inheritance to be received, and the apostle wishes the readers to know how great the rich fulness of this glory is; cfc CoL L 27, " riches of the glory of this mystery." "Among the saints." This is by most comcV Tois dyiois. mentators connected with Kkrjpovofjua, a connexion which is naturally suggested by Acts xx. 32, Sowat icXrjpoyofuay cV rots
rfyiaa-/Mvois iraxnv: cf. it. xxvi.
is
1 8, Kkrjpov cV tois Tjyuur/Uvois.
It
objection to this that it would require the article rrjv to be repeated before cV r. dy., not simply because avrov comes between, but because y Kkrjpovofua 0cov is completely defined by this avrov. In fact, with this connexion the words would mean, " the inheritance which God has in the saints," which is actually the meaning adopted by Stier, conjoining iKktfpMrffjuey9 ver. 1 1, which he interprets, " were made an inheritance." This, however, would be out of harmony with the use of the word in the N.T. (cf. ver. 14 ; ch. v. 5 ; Acts xx. 32, above), as ovyycv&v pov Kara well as with the context Such phrases as adpKa (where <r. is an adj., Rom. ix. 3) ; rbv 'Icrpa^X jcara tropica, I Cor. x. 18; ra iOvrj iv <rap#ct', Eph. ii. 11 ; rbv v/mok (fikov \nr\p ifiov, 2 Cor. viL 7, are not analogous. The construction then is, " What the riches of the glorjr of His inheritance is among the saints." The community of believers is the sphere in which alone this irAovros, jc.t.A., is found. This does not require the repetition of 6 before v t. dy., nor does it give too great emphasis to the latter words. The object of the Kkijpovofua is, of course, the future kingdom of God; but this future glory is treated by St Paul as if present 10. ical ti to direpPdWoi' piycOos, ict.X. Supply, as in the previous clause, iorC, to which then we are to attach cfc tyta?, not Swapca>?, " And what the exceeding greatness of His power is to usward." Thus the two clauses are symmetrical, cfc 17/ufc corresponding in position to cv roU dyiW. The three objects of ciScvat are in reality one and the same under different points of view ; the content of the " hope of the calling" is the inheritance of Heb. ix. 15, and this again in its realisation is an effect and proof of the owa/ic? of God Thus the object of the iirtyywrts is the blessing to be obtained in the future kingdom of God. Kara T^r cWpYciar, k.t.X. Many commentators connect these words with tow Trurr., understanding them as expressing the fact that faith itself is the result of God's ivipytuu But this would make the whole solemn exposition in ver. 29 subservient to ttmtt.,
a serious
if
not
fatal
iw
20, 21
SUPREMACY OF CHRIST
which is only incidental in the sentence. The connexion would be interrupted by a reference to the origin of faith. Besides, this would require us to give to Kara some such meaning as " by virtue 11 of, since our faith is not according to the measure of His power. The three objects of ci&W are so closely connected in themselves that it matters little whether we refer the words Kara t. to the
only or to all three; naturally, however, the tvtpytta is This lv. supplies the immediately connected with the last measure by which to estimate the power of God. As to the three words lo^ys, Koaro?, cvepycta, the distinction appears to be that Urx& is inherent power, *paros power expressing itself in overcoming resistance, and cVepycta the actual exercise of The Vulgate has "secundum operationem potentiae power. virtutis ejus." Each term has here its appropriate meaning, and there is no occasion to have recourse to a Hebraism, or to such a
last
resolution as jcparos Urxypov.
from
God was shown in His raising Christ and setting Him above all created powers by whatever name they may be called, whether on earth or in heaven. His relation to the Church, however, is more intimate. It is the Body
20-28. This power of
the dead,
of which
He is the Head.
20. 4[r M\py7\a- or Jv^pyijictr. The latter is read by AB, Cyr., the former by K P. The versions naturally do not help. Lachm. Tisch. placing the aorist in the margin. Tregelles adopt the perfect, puts the perfect in the margin. The neighbouring aorist might readily lead to the substitution of the aorist for the perfect The counter change would not be so easily accounted for. The perfect is properly employed, because the effect continues while the separate acts in which this ivepyeiw realised itself follow in aorists.
WE
DGKL
WE
lyctpas.
The time
is
contemporaneous with that of the
principal verb; not "having raised him"; but as raised him " ; or " in that raised Him."
AV. "when
He
He
21. ical KoftCorot. This is the reading of K AB, Vulg. The Rec. ral P, Chrys. etc. ; adrdr is added in K A, Boh. Syr. 4k&0ut*p is found in Tischendorf, who reads rat xadUrat P, Vulg. (both), but not in B with tt A, thinks a difficulty was found in this reading for two reasons, first, that although the verb occurs frequently in the N.T. it is transitive only in I Cor. vi 4 (compare rwnrdfluw, Eph. ii. 6) ; and, secondly, because nowhere else is God said to have placed Christ at His right hand, but Christ is said to have sat down at God's right hand. Those who adopt the reading ixdOtaew think that more emphasis is thereby given to iyelpat as the principal illustration of the Divine power. The words seem to be an indirect quotation of Ps. ex. 1. Compare Ps. zvi. 1 1, and the request of the sons of Zebedee, Mark x. 37 ; and for the ground of the figure, Harless quotes from Pindar (of Minerva), I Sam. xx. 25 ; I Kings ii. 19. 6e(dr /card xei/M rarpto ffeai {Fragm. zL 9). The words express participation in the highest honour and power. So Stephen beholds Jesus standing 4k toîO* rod 6foD, Acts vii 56.
DGKL DGKL
aMw
'
Ik tois tmjpaftots has, of course, primarily
local signification.
32

Katiuras
1
[X.
21
and 8ci<{. It is said that these " distinctly "tend to invalidate the vague and idealistic status coelestis urged by Harless " (Ellicott). But these expressions tell rather the other way. For surely no one will interpret the right hand of God locally, or the " sitting." These words are but figurative expressions of honour and dignity. Some writers, indeed, lay stress on Stephen's beholding of Jesus at the right hand of God. "As Stephen saw Him, so He veritably is," says Alford ; and Stier holds fast the "certum irov of heaven, yea of the throne of God in it" With so literal a view as this rk iirovpdvta can be nothing but extra-terrestrial space, or more properly (considering the earth's motion), space in general "The distressed mind instinctively looks upward (says Eadie) to the throne of God."
But so also have
1
local
expressions
'
'
a similar observation of Passavant decisive. Antipodes, or ourselves at a later hour?) We look upward in order to look away from visible things.
And Stier calls (How about the

B reads iv rots
21. direpdw,
odpavoit,
which
is
adopted by Lachmann.
ityos Srjkuxrr),
X^povfitfi;
x.
is not intensive, Tva to dxporarov "far above," AV. See Heb. ix. 5, \nrpdvu> Ezek. xliii. 15, vn\ twv jccparw vrjxys; also #. viiL 2,
"over above,"
aMp
19.
Compare also
ii 8.
ird<rr)s
viro*dra>,
Mark vL
1 1, v.
t&v
iro&Stv vfiZv,
and Heb.
There was a tendency to such compounds

ApXHS Kai ^{ouoias nal
in later Greek.
fturrfpcws Kal Kupi6ri)ros.
These
enumeration rfjs yiys ra bpara koX ra dopara circ Opovot eirc ftvpioVirrc? ctrc dp\al etrc i( owtcu. In CoL the abstracts are obviously used for the concrete; it does not, however, follow that the same is the case here where the nouns are singular. There St Paul is contending definitely against the doctrine of angelic mediators ; here he is only alluding to it Vitringa takes the words here as abstract, understanding them as In either case there is titles which belonged to the Messiah. probably a reference to the use of the words as names of classes of angelic powers. The view that limits the meaning of the words to earthly powers may be set aside, as this would have little point in connexion with such a lofty expression of Christ's exaltation. But the questions remain, Are the powers referred to only Are these heavenly heavenly, or both earthly and heavenly? powers good or bad, or both ? and what conclusion, if any, can we draw as to the ranks and subordination of the angels ? It will be convenient to answer the last question first, which we do without hesitation in the words of Lightfoot (on Col.), " In this catalogue St Paul does not profess to describe objective realities, but
parallel
words cannot be considered apart from the in Col. i. 16, to, vdvra iv rots ovpavois ical rl
contents himself with repeating subjective opinions."
First, neither
X.
31]
SUPREMACY OF CHRIST
33
here nor elsewhere does he make any positive statement about the orders of angelic powers. To do so here would be, not to assist, but to interrupt his exposition of the doctrine of Christ's exaltation. Nor, indeed, is it likely that here and in CoL, writing to those who were in danger of giving too much prominence to angelology, and priding themselves on their knowledge of the unseen (Col. ii. 18), St Paul should enlighten them by "an 1 incidental revelation' (Ellicott), which could have no effect but The very manner in to assist them in their futile speculations. which he expresses himself here, *<u iravros cVo/taros oVo/ao{o/Vov, k.t.A., indicates the contrary. As Lightfoot well remarks, "He brushes away all these speculations without inquiring how much or how little truth there may be in them, because they are altogether beside the question." It is as if he said, " It matters not by what title they are called, or whether real or imaginary, Christ
is
elevated above
them
all'
is
The
cn-c
ctrc in
CoL
gives
similar indication.
He
impatient with this elaborate angelology.
Paul took these names from the speculations to which he which the Asiatic readers of this Epistle also were familiar. This is not mere conjecture. In the Testaments of th* Twelve Patriarchs, an early Jewish-Chnstian work (probably before A.D. 131), seven orders of spirits are named, the two highest, which are in the seventh heaven, being called 0p6roi and fiowrtau. The others are described by their offices (Levi 3). Ongen enumerates five classes, called in the Latin in an ascending series, " sancti angeli, principatus (=&pxaU), potentates ( =#wrieu), sedes or throni ( = 8p6woi) t dominationes { = Kvpibrtfrti)" Opp. I733> pp 66, 70. But this cannot be regarded as independent of St PauL Ephrem Syrus, commenting on Deut L 15, gives three great divisions, subdivided thus:
refers in Col.
ii.
No doubt St
18, with
(1) 0coJ,
fydroi,
Kvpdrqm
(2)
dpx&yy&oi, dpxal, gowlcu;
(3) AyytXoi,
(Compare Milton's bwdfteu, xepou/91/i, atpa<pifi {Opp, Syr. I p. 270). "thrones, dominations, princedoms, virtues, powers.") The treatise of the pseudo - Dionysius "on the Celestial Hierarchy,*9 written about A.D. 500, and very popular in the Middle Ages, gives three classes each with three subdivisions, viz.: (1) Opdroc, x*/w/HMi rcpvftpi Perhaps (2) tfowlai, Kvptbnjrn, dwd/cecr ; (3) dyyeXoc, dpxdyytXoij dpxaL too much importance has been attached in this connexion to these quotations by some expositors, as if it might be assumed that they were derived from independent sources. Origen seems wholly dependent on St Paul, saying that ne does not know whence the apostle took the names. It follows from what has been said that it is to no purpose to inquire whether the names are arranged in ascending or descending order, especially as the order in Colossians is not the same as in Ephesians, nor the reverse whence Alford supposes that here the first two descend, the next two ascend. More wisely Chrysostom calls the names AVi^ta *al 06 ywwpi&ftewa, and Augustine, " dicant, qui possunt, si tamen possunt probare quoa dicunt ; ego me ista ignorare fateor." The universality of expression both here and in Colossians, where the enumeration is preceded uj the words " in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible/' leads us to infer that earthly powers as well as heavenly are The terms &px&l, iâwUu are used of earthly powers in Tit iii. I, included. and in this Epistle in vL 12 of evil powers. KvpUrfp occurs in 2 Pet ii. 10 f Jude 8. Compare the Book of Enoch lxL 10, " angels of power and angels
of principality
1'
(ed. Charles, p. 46).
34

teal iramrds A^jjwitos, k.t.X.
jcoi
[L 22, 98
here = and in general, c Demosth. *al apx5s *<" ayaôv tivoq furaXafir P<viyt and Aeschin. adv. Tim. % SoAcuv ckcifos, 6 vaXatos vofjuoBcnp koX 6 Apcucwv ical 01 Kara tovs xpovou? fccivou? vofioOirai (Fritzsche,
De
Contrib. xxxi 4,
#cai 1*1/117?
Mattk pp. 786, 870). ovo/ia oVofuxô/icvov is understood by many (including Lightfoot) to mean " every dignity or title (whethei real or imaginary) which is reverenced." But 6vopa never of itself contains the idea of dignity; in such phrases as "the name of God," it is because of the word with which it is joined that it acquires this sense ; so again in such phrases as iroulv ov., fyctv 6V., iv 6v6fiart cfrcu, the idea of dignity does not reside in the word
ovopa any more than in our word "name," which is similarly used when we say " to make a name," eta The participle 6vo/aoo/acvov
shows that the word is to be taken in its simple meaning. is it "every such name," which is quite arbitrary. od poW, ict.X. Chrysostom and Theodoret suppose these words to refer to our possible knowledge in the future life ; but it is not our knowledge that is in question, but the exaltation of Christ, which is thus declared to be, not temporary, but eternaL The form of expression is common in Jewish writers, who, however, by " the world to come" understand the time of the Messiah. Cf. Matt xiL 32. 22. Kal irdKTa ict.X., a reminiscence (not a citation as in 1 Cor. xv. 27) of Ps. viiL 7, where the words are spoken of man. Here
also
Nor
the apostle adopts them as typically applicable to Christ, in whom they received a higher and more complete fulfilment The context in the psalm itself, "all sheep and oxen," eta, shows that this is not to be regarded as an interpretation of the psalm, but an application of its language in a manner familiar with Jewish writers. In Christ, humility was raised to a dignity far surpassing that which was assigned to it at its first creation. ical c&cmcck o$to> Kcô\f)K Airlp irdira tq ckkXtjoio. The verb Kauccv is not for !&/kcv, but with its proper sense, "gave," is directly connected with rjj IkkX. The order of the words is not against this, for not only is the position of K<t>akrjv v. *r. most appropriate to the general sense of the passage, which concerns, not the giving, but the giving as Head, but it is also necessary to *e</>aA.7/y clearness, in order that 7ns may follow ckkA. directly. vn-cp vdvra is not = summum caput, as if there were more heads than one, but simply " Head over alL" 28. iJTis=not the simple relative, but "which, in fact, is," "ut quae." In order, says Oecumenius, that hearing of the head you may not think merely of rule and authority, o-/umKci>? 1J/1&V c<m There is an organic connexion ; the life of the Church K<f>a\y. springs from its union with Christ as its Head. t& wX^fwpa too t& t&vra iv iroW ir\r\pw\Uvw. much vexed passage, which is ably discussed by Soden, to the following effect
X.
S3]
SUPREMACY OF CHRIST
35
We find in iv. 10 that it is the function of Christ to fill all things, having ascended to heaven and thence descending with the gifts communicated to the Church. He is here, therefore, called 6 vkyjpovpxvos ra irdVra. This He is able to do by virtue of His being the head over alL How this is to be understood is suggested by Rom. xiii. 9 sq., where that by which the law is fulfilled, namely, <lydVi7, is also If we that in which the law with all its parts dvaKcâXaiovnu. transfer this to the present passage, it gives the result that the fact that ra iravra are filled by Christ coincides with this ; but ra TrdVra dvaxcâXaiovrac in Christ, ch. L 10. And this expression corresponds with the conception that the Church, whose function is to be the means of this vkrjpovaOcu, is so because Christ is given to her as Head If Christ is to fill all things through the medium of the Church, He must first fill the Church. And with this the figure of <ra>/ia agrees, since in a man the head fills the body with its thoughts and purposes, so that each member is determined by it and rilled by it, and that the more, the maturer the man is: comp. iv. x 3i z6> where the irkrjpufw. rov Xp. is attained in proportion as In this view n-Ai/payia rov the (Ttofia is, so to speak, full grown. Xp. is understood to mean that which is filled with Christ, and with some modifications this is the view adopted by most modems. The difficulty is in the genitive relation, wX. rovXp. The word vXypoyfia has been very fully discussed, from a lexical point of
view,
by Fritzsche (Rom.
vii.
p.
469),
to
whom
later
com-
mentators are indebted for their references ; also by Lightfoot in an excursus on Col., and by others. The verb irX-qpom means either to fill or to fulfil, complete. The meanings of the substantive have been generally derived from the former signification, but it is important to keep the latter in mind. Like all verbals in -/ao, the substantive has a passive signification. There are, indeed, one or two passages cited by Fritzsche and the lexicons as examples of an active sense, eg. Eur. Troad. 824, Zipw fy"* kv\Uq)v vkqpvpjOL KoAAiorav Xarpccav, i.e. filling the cups of Zeus, and Philo, de Abr. (ii. p. 39), wiWis fj irpbs rov 0coV, vapnrjyoprjpA pCovt irXiJpw/ia xprjoriav iXirfiiw * bonae spei ad eventum adductio (for faith is not the fulfilment of hope). These are not admitted by Lightfoot, but they are cited as examples of what would be properly called an "active" sense of n-Ai/pa/ma. That which is usually so called is really passive ; for since the action of the verb has an indirect as well as a direct object, the substantive may mean either, "id quo res impletur s. impleta est," or "id quod completur." vafc irX-qpavv is a familiar phrase for "to man ships," and hence ro nk^ptafm and ra irkrjpwfiaTa of ships are the full complement of their crews or fighters, or both, < Xen.
36
HelL L
iptra*.
(ii.

6.
[l 83
l6,
fc
It is also
iroAAaiy irkrjpvfiaTW fcAeXcxlat tov$ tykrov* used of the cargo, as by Philo, de vita Mosis
144),
who speaks
of to
irA,
of the ark.
irkrjpuiftxiTa
6 rStv vtfwv <t>6pro?.
The
Suidas, too, gives passive force in these cases
be more clear if we compare Xen. HelL vi. 2. 14, where Iphicrates rat vav? hrkrjpov. The action was that of Iphicrates, but neither he nor his action was vkypvfui. The word is also used of the ship itself, as in Lucian, Ver. Hist, ii. 37, &ro ovo irkypvfJu&TW ifid\ovro; 38, irarrt yap it\ov irXi/poyiara, a usage explained by Fritzsche from the sense "id quod completer," but more simply as a figure of the same kind as that by which in naval histories the admiral's ship is called " the admiral"
will
But we want to know the meaning of irA. with a genitive. There appears to be no example of a ship being called vk.
1-779 ttoAccd? occurs pretty often, of or of a combination of artisans, etc. complete enough to form a city (Arist Pol. iv. 4, p. 1291, ravra irdvTOy i.e. all these workmen, yivcTcu irkyptDpua rip irpwmrp ttoXcok. In the Sept we have irk. rifc yrfa tj}s 6aka\r<nf% etc., and in Eccles. iv. 6, irX. 8paxos, a handful. In the N.T., still in the same sense, Mk. viiL 20, cnrvpt'&W vkrjpiLfiaTa, The sense "abundance," often found, does not concern us here. The only example quoted to justify the interpretation of irk. with a genitive, as = irivki)pvpcvov, is from Philo, De Praem. et Poen. (ii. p. 418), "The soul by these three excellent things, nature, learning, exercise, ycw/tcny irkrjfXDfui dpcTftfy, leaving in itself no empty space for the entry of other things." But the plural aperwv here prevents our accepting the passage as a satisfactory parallel to irk. Xpurrov (or cov). The article also forms an objection to this interpretation. Since Christ, in the same sentence, is said to fill all things, how can the Church be defined as to irkrjpw/ta, " that which is filled by Him " ? Moreover, there is on this view no such parallelism between <rmpa and irk. as the supposition would lead us to expect. The idea of the head filling the body is too remote from common notions to be left to the reader to supply. Fritzsche suggests two alternatives, either " those who are filled by Christ, namely, with blessings," or taking irk. = " multitudo," " plenum Christd agmen," the paronomasia in the latter case being verbal Eadie and Ellicott as well as some others do not seem to distinguish the two notions " filled with " and " filled by," calling the Church "the filled-up receptacle of spiritual blessing from Him" (Eadie, adopted by Ell). If this is their view it is irrelevant to quote irk. optTuv or, as Fritzsche, irkrjpoxxrdai cov (from If they understand "filled with Christ's presence or Pollux). life " (as we surely must if this signification of irk. is adopted), the words just quoted are inadequate.
hrtfiantv or the like.
irkrjpw/xa
city,
the
full
population of the
1.23]
SUPREMACY OF CHRIST
yj
Lightfoofs view is that "all the divine graces which reside in are imparted to her ; His fulness is communicated to her and thus she may be said to be His pleroma." But this thought is not suggested by the connexion, and, besides, the interpretation makes <ru>/*a and irkrjpwfia convey quite heterogeneous ideas. There is, however, another meaning of irkrjpu/ia which would give an excellent sense, and which has been adopted by Chrysostom, Oecumenius, Thomas Aquinas, and many others, namely, " complement " in the second sense of that word, viz. that which makes complete. This appears to be the signification in which the word occurs in Matt. ix. 16, Mark ii. 21, where to iiriPXrjua, the patch put on the old garment, is called to irKr/pupa (although Lightfoot interprets the word otherwise). This agrees with the use of the verb in connexion with xpeiav = to supply (Thucyd.). The expression is then seen to be easy and natural ; the Church as the body of Christ is the irk^paifia or complement of Him, its Head. "He says irAi}p/ta," observes Chrysostom, "just as the head is completed by the body, for the body is composed of all the parts and has need of each one. See how he brings Him in as needing all. For unless we be many, and one a hand, another a foot, and another some other part, the whole body is not completed. By all then is His body completed. Then the head is completed, then the body becomes perfect when we are all joined and united together." To this it is objected that it supposes that Christ without the Church would be deficient, since irXypiDpa implies a previous The objection leaves the figure out of account. When iJtti7/ml Christ is called Head, the figure implies that however complete He is in Himself, yet as Head He is not complete without His body. As Beza well remarks, " Such is Christ's love for the Church, that He, as it were, regards Himself as incomplete unless He has the Church united to Him as a body " ; to which the apostle then adds, tov ra iraKTa, #c.t.\., to express that Christ does not of Himself need this complement, but that, on the contrary, all our completeness is from Him. There is here no inconsistency in thought, although a superficial inconsistency in words, in fact an oxymoron. Amongst recent expositors this view is adopted by Barry.
Him
Oltraniare ably maintains the signification

x\-f)pu)fia Tiroi
" perfection "
for rXiJ/w/wu
rb
means "that by which a person or thing is filled," and hence, in speaking of persons, he says it signifies that by which a person is filled, perfected. John i. 16, 4k tov rXrip&fULTQi avrov iX&poper, i.e. of that with which he is filled, an allusion to r\i}pip xdpiros koX aXijdciai, vet. 14. Usually it refers to qualities with which a person is filled, and which render him perfect, from rXripovv, "to render perfect (things)," as in Phil, ii 2, Eph* iv. 10, Eva rX-qpuxr-Q r& rdrra 2 Thess. L II, wXilfKbrari ju>v rifw xa P&" tra . 6 Beds i)fi>r . irXtyKta-p rdcar etooiclay ayaSwoirrrii. So rXipoCr* $<u, John iii. 29, i) x aP& "h f*h xcir\-J)pwrai xv. II, tva . . ^ gapd ft/iAr 2 Cor. x. 6, &ray TXrjpwdjj bfj&w ^ {nratcoij : cf. Eph. iii. 19, . 18 ; r\r}f>u$jj Hence irerX^/Kuôf, "made complete, perfect," John xvi 24, Col. i. 9.
38
xvii.
THE EriSTLE TO THE EPHESIANS
[ZL 1
13; PhiL L 11, irerX. Kapxbv diicato<jijinp t "perfect as regards the not as in Rec xapwQw, " filled with " ; Col. ii. 10, icrt iw airr^ rerXfifxafUrot : Apoc iii. 2, 06 ybp efyiprd aov rd tpya TerXyptajifra, .r.X. Hence rXtyu/uL, "perfection," 1 Eph. iii 19, tva vXifpudijfn els rtL* rd rX. roO 6eo0 : CoL L 19, t&v rb wMjp<afa : ii. 9, ra* rd rX. r^r 6e6rjfros : Eph. iv. 13, rd rX. roO XpcoroO. Hence Oltramare renders here " the perfection The (objectively, = the perfect work) of Him who makes all perfect" difficulty in this interpretation is just in the equation "perfections perfect work. " This requires further justification. We must decidedly reject the exposition which makes rX^pa/ia to be in apposition with a6r6r. This would make Ijrtt i<mw rb aQ/m a&roO a useless insertion, and worse than useless, as serving only to separate rX. from Muxcr. Moreover, if the words were to mean "even Him who is," etc., they should come after adrdr ; as they stand they could only depend on a6rdr f&mcci>, " gave Him to be rX. 9 " which does not yield a possible 1
fruit," etc.,
wXtipouuiwxi, not passive, as Chrys. (see above) and Vulg. irao-i a solecism, but (adimpletur), which would make to. irdvra middle. might interpret the middle here as = " for Himself," but the instance quoted above from Xen. Bell. vL 2. 14, shows
We
that the middle
may be used
rov
The
participle refers not to

<ro>fm,
simply in an active signification. God, as Theodoret suggests, saying rov

iv.
fuv Xpurrov
parallelism
&
irarpos irkypiafia, but to Christ, as the

12,
shows as well as
ly
where
Zva irkrjpworj
ra vavra
is
said of Christ
m<rt " in
all
" rather than " with all"
1-10. This exhibition of GocPs power has not stopped there. has made us partakers of Chrisfs resurrection and exaltation, having given us life when we were dead through our sins* Not for any merit of our own, but of His own free grace, for it was when we were dead in our sins that He thus loved us. But though our salvation was not on account of any works of ours, it was God's purpose in His new creation of us that we should walk in the path of holiness which He designed L Kai upas from its position means "and you, too." Resumed in ver. 5, where first the verb o-wcfwoiron/o-c is expressed. Some commentators, indeed, have closely connected this with the preceding verse, so as to make v/uz? depend on irXrjpovptvov. But the relation between vckoov* and o~we. is decisive against this. Lachmann, while taking v/iac to be dependent on ewef., puts only a comma after i. 23, so as to co-ordinate ical (owc(.) v/w with avrov c&Wc. But in this case we should certainly expect fytas here, since the apostle would be passing from what God has done with respect to Christ, to what He has done to Christians; cf. L 19, cfc qpd? rov? irurr. Moreover, i. 23 has the character of a solemn close, not of a parenthetical insertion ; while the exposition which begins in ii. 1 is too important to be regarded as a
H.
He
Compare
Plutarch,
/uLKaptbnjTt, ArerX^pwro complete in happiness."
De
4I
Plac. Phil. L 7. 9, ijroi bikei-rc* els cMot/iorta* 1) either he lacked something for happiness, or he was
IL
1]
JEWS AND GENTILES DEAD IN SIN
39
mere appendage to the foregoing. Hence, also, it is not a mere exemplification of the general act of grace referred to in L 23. Rather are we to understand that the apostle, having spoken of the exceeding power of God towards those that believe, which
might be recognised by reflection on what He had done in raising and exalting Christ, now, applying this to his readers, reminds them that in them also God had shown that exceeding power
(Meyer). The grammatical structure is interrupted before the It is taken up again with 8c in subject or the verb is expressed. ver. 4, where the subject is expressed, and in ver. 5 the object is repeated, which, however, is now changed to the first person in consequence of the koX 17/m? introduced in ver. 3. onus PCKpods tois irapairftSfiacriK nal toIs ajiapTiais d|M>r. Vfiwv is added with K B G, Syr. (both) Vulg., Theodoret, etc. It is omitted by L> most cursives, Chrys. Oec. has iawStv 8rras v.t "dead as ye were through your trespasses and sins." Many attempts have been made to distinguish between d/Aapruu and impairra>/iarou Tittmann, following Augustine's distinction {ad Lev. qu. 20), supposes the former to be deliberate sins, the latter sins of thoughtlessness. Augustine himself in the same place suggests a different view, viz. that ir. meant "desertio boni," and <2fu "perpetratio mall" He seems then to have been guessing. Certainly these distinctions are both untenable. Jerome takes irap. to refer to the beginnings of sin in thought, d/x. to the actual deeds, which Many understand d/x,, which is the more is not admissible. general term, as meant to include the sinful disposition, trap, being only concrete acts. However reasonable this may be with the singular dfiapria, it can hardly be maintained of the plural. Etymology gives no help, for irapairurro) means to fall or go aside from, to miss, e<g. rip 680O, Polyb. iii. 54. 5 ti} dAi/lct'ac, ib. xiL 7. 2, also without a genitive, to err. So that etymologically trap, is the same as afiaprla. St. Paul appears to use the words as synonymous, see Rom. V. 20, tva irXtovaxrQ to irapajmapja. ; ov 8c iirXtovwrw f) dftopTwi, #c.t.A. Comp. also Rom. iv. 25 with 1 Cor. xv. 3. Nexpous is here taken by Meyer to mean liable to eternal death. That vtKpoi may be used proleptically appears from Rom. viii. 10. In that case the dative is instrumental But this is hard to reconcile with the tense of <rwefoKMroiiy<rc. And surely it is very improbable that the apostle in speaking of the working of God's power towards them, would mention only their future deliverance from death, and not their actual deliverance from spiritual death. Nor could the readers fail to think of spiritual death. This sense is sufficiently indicated by rots irap. #c.t.A., as well as by the following verse. So Chrysostom, cts hr\aray jraiu'as ^Xdo-arc (tovto yap iart MKpwOrjvcu). This figure of spiritual (or moral) death is fr* quent amongst the ancients. Clement of Alexandria says that tV
40
r fiapfidpov

<f>i\<xro<f>La
[XL 2
rwv hoypArtav The Jewish Rabbis have similar expressions. But Christianity has given a much deeper meaning to " death " in this connexion. We have the same phrase in Col. ii. 1 3, where iv is not part of the genuine
vctcoov?
ixirtcrovras
xfrvxtKols.
KaXovai tov?
koX KaOv7roTd$avra<: tov vovv tois iraBtcri tois
text,
and
rjj
aKpopvoTiq.
rrj^ <rapic6$ vfjiutv
is
against the
strumental sense of the dative.
It expresses that in
mere inwhich the
death consisted.
8. iv ah refers to both substantives, though agreeing in gender with the nearer, vcptirarciv in this sense is a Hebraism. The figure has disappeared, so that we are not to press the preposition as if marking "the walk which they trod"; see Rom. xiii. 13, vpuraTy<ro)fjLcv> fi.Tj Kco/tot? kcu /xcât?, ic.r.A., and the parallel use of iropcvcotfai, Acts ix. 31, ir. t<3 ô/?a> tov tcvptov. It is of frequent occurrence in St Paul and St John, but is not found in St James or St Peter, who use dvcurrpifao-Bai (a classical word, though not before Polybius); cf. 1 Pet i. 17. kotA tok alwKo tou jc&rpou TouTou. "In accordance with the course of this world." This combination of aluv and koV/aos creates some difficujty. Elsewhere we have 6 cu&v ovtos (i Cor. i. 20, ij <rcnf>ta tov #c. ii. 6, iii. 18, etc.), or 6 Koo-fios ovw, i Cor. iiL 19. rovrov in the latter passage being synonymous with rj oo<f>ia rod at But the two substantives are not synrovrov in 1 Cor. iL 6. onymous ; aluv means a period of time ; Kocrpos, the world existing
Thus Antoninus (ii. 12) says that all things period. quickly vanish, rep fiV Koo-fup avra rd ctofiaTOy r<p ok alutvi at pvrjpai avrvv. The signification " life," frequent in classical Greek, especiAs a paraally in the tragic poets, is never found in the N.T. phrase, however, " spirit of the age " fairly represents the sense, except that "age" refers to the whole period of this icocr/ioc Comp. Tacitus, "corrumpere et corrumpi saeculum vocatur" (Germ. L 9). aluiv being a technical word with the Gnostics, it was to be expected that some expositors would adopt a similar meaning here. Accordingly, this has been done by Michaelis, who supposes the words aUav tov k. t. to mean " the devil," with a polemic reference to the Gnostic aeons ; and by Baur, who regards the expression itself as Gnostic, and equivalent to #cocr/u>cpdr(i)f>, vi 12, meaning "the deviL" Holtzmann regards it as representing a transition As the ordinary signifistage between Paulinism and Gnosticism. cation of aitav yields a perfectly good and Pauline sense, there is no ground for such hypotheses. If the devil were intended to be designated here as ruler of this world, we might expect some such expression as 6 0co? tov cucovo? rovrov, as in 2 Cor. iv. 4. kotA top apxon-o ttjs {{oua/as tou dlpoc Most expositors take i(. here collectively = at #owruu, understanding tou dipos as exSuch words as o-vp.pxiyâ pressing the sphere of their existence.
in that
II. 2]

SovXaa for
SovAot,
irpcrpta for irpcor/fci?,
etc.,
41
ex-
for (rvfifiaxoL,
So emplify this collective use of abstract for concrete terms. occasionally in English, as " embassy," " flight " (of arrows). The present case, however, is not quite parallel, since the distribution for which ((. is supposed to stand is the plural of this word itself, This implies that the singular might be used of viz. ai cfovo-i'ai. one of the i(owriai ; cf. Rom. xiii. 2, 3, where, however, r) i( does not mean a ruling person. To use it collectively for ai i(. is, therefore, very different from using r) (rvpfiaxta for w (rvpîa\oi. Besides, we must not assume that the word can be treated apart from the following genitive. 6 apx<v *s defined, not by rr)s #., but by tiJs cf. rov dcpo?. For this reason, too, we cannot take r. I. as a genitive of apposition =" princeps potentissimus." Now, the genitive following i(owria is elsewhere either subjective, as j) If. rov aurava\ Acts xxvi. 18; rov mrcitdvo?, Lk. xx. 20 ; vtuuv, 1 Cor. viil 9 ; or objective, vd<np crapicoc, John xvii. 2 ; *vcvfura>K, Matt x. 1 ; vfiS>v, 1 Cor. ix. 12. It is possible, therefore, to understand the words as meaning " the ruler to whom belongs the power over " the region of the air ; but this would create a difficulty in conIt is therefore perhaps best to take nexion with nrcv/iaro9. rj i$. rov as the power whose seat is in the air. Some commentators take ar}p here as = encore* ; and if this were possible we should have obvious parallels in vi. 12, Koa-fWKpdropas rov cricdVovs But although Arjp rovrov, and Col. L 13, tt?? i(ovaia^ rov oncdrovc. is used in Homer and elsewhere of "thick air" in contrast to alfrijp, as in Plutarch (of the first creation), cVi pAv ovpavov Ifcpvnrcv &qp (>e esu earn. Or. I. 2), it does not appear that it can be used simply for crôro*, nor again that if so used figuratively, it could by another figure be used of spiritual darkness. What, then, does the expression mean? Oecumenius* view is that as the rule of Satan is under heaven, not above, it must be either in the earth or the air ; but, being a spirit, it must be in the air, ^vVi? yap rots nrcv/btacriv rj ^vacptos Siarptfi^ ; and this is adopted by Harless and The air being understood to mean, not merely the region others. of the atmosphere, but " all that supra-terrestrial, but sub-celestial, region, which seems to be, if not the abode, yet the haunt of evil
.
who compares Job i. 7 LXX, ifiirtpi-n-drrjcav rrjv vw ovpavdv, which surely is not to be appealed to as giving any Eadie ingeniously suggests that "the arjp and kov/jlo* light must correspond in relation. As there is an atmosphere round the physical globe, so air, arjp, envelops this spiritual Koapos" an atmosphere "in which it breathes and moves." Compare our own phrases in which "atmosphere" is used figuratively, "an atmoBut if such a figure were intended, some sphere of flattery," etc. word must be added which would indicate the figure, such as the words " breathes and moves " in Eadie's explanation. Indeed, he
spirits," Ellicott,
42
admits that

it
[XL
perhaps too ingenious to be true, and falls back used current language, which did not convey error, as Satan is called Beelzebub, without reference to the meaning of the term " Lord of flies," or that he means to convey the idea of "near propinquity," or alludes to what he had more fully explained during his residence at Ephesus. That the notion of the air being the dwelling-place of spirits, and specially of evil spirits, was current, appears to be beyond doubt Thus Pythagoras held cTkcu iravra to? Aipa tjrvx^y Zfiw\u>v (Diog. L. viii. 32). Philo says, ovs dXXoi <fn\6<ro<t>ot
is
on the
alternative that either the apostle
dyy&ovs Moktt/s cia>0cv oVo/kxciv* i/a/xai 8* fieri #rar& rov dcpa vr6fjLyau In the Test. XII. Pair, it is said of 6 Scurcpo* ovpavo? that it has fire, snow, ice ready for the day of the Lord's command, cV a6r<j> curl iraira ra irvcv/uara rwv iiraywyGtv cfc IkSuctj<tlv twv Av6fjM>v (Levi, ap. Fabric. Cod. Apoc. V.T. p. 547), and in Test. Benj. p. 729, BcXiop is called to &4pu>v nvVfuu Drusius cites from the commentary on Aboth, "sciendum, a terra usque ad expansum omnia plena esse turmis et praefectis et infra plurimas esse creaturas credentes et accusantes, omnesque stare ac volitare in aere . quorum alii ad bonum, alii ad
Scupovas,
malum
incitant." There is no difficulty in supposing that St Paul is here alluding to such current notions. Nor are we to suppose that he is conveying any special revelation about the matter. Harless* objection, that according to the views referred
the air was inhabited by good spirits as well as bad, is by no means fatal, since it is on the bad spirits that men's thoughts would chiefly dwell, and to them would be referred evil suggestions and desires. tou in* rijiaTo^ is understood by some (including RQckert and
to,
De
Wette) as in
apposition with rov apxoyTau
Winer, while
rejecting this view, admits that in this case the apostle might most easily have wandered from the right construction, namely, on account of the preceding genitives. It is, however, unnecessary to
must be conceded that the only admisirv. depends on apxcvra, is more harsh as to sense, although the harshness is lessened by the distance from apxovra. Adopting this, the sense is, "the ruler of the spirit," etc. Here wv&fia is not to be understood collectively, which it cannot be; it is what in 1 Cor. ii. 12 is called to wvwpa rov Koor/tov, the spiritual influence which works in the disobedient It seems to be a sort of explanation of the preceding eôvcrta. kuk. Not "even now," which would require #cal vw, but in
suppose
this,
although
it
sible alternative, viz. that
operated in the readers also. of expression. We have " son of misery," Prov. xxxi. 5 ; " sons of iniquity," 2 Sam. viL 10; "sons of Belial ( worthlessness)." Compare ch. v. 6;
contrast to
itotc,
when
this spirit
iv tois utots
1% dirciOcias. A Hebrew form
XL
3]
43
Col. iiL 6 ; 1 Thess. v. 5 ("sons of light"); 2 Thess. 11. 3 ("son of perdition "). Greek authors used the expression ircuSc? arypa<w and the like, but not with abstracts. The opposite to viol air. is Tc/cva xnraKorf^ 1 Pet. L 14. a7rci'0cia is not unbelief, but disobedi-
ence; compare
Rom.
xi.
Chrysostom very curiously

irttdot
30, *<u v/icts irork rprtidrjaart T<p 0c(p. says, opfis 5 ov /ftp ov& rvpawiSi &Xka
yap cTircv, <us av tis ctirot, aTrdrg teal rov9 iravras tycXxerac But on Col. iii. 6 he says, Scucvvs ort fl-apa to /x^ vur^vaL Iv tovtois eio-tv. The former remark looks more like a rhetorical play on words than a serious comment #cal qficic, "we also, we too." 8. ir oU Kal 4||ii$. Having spoken specially of the Gentiles in the preceding verses, the apostle now passes to the Jews. The mfcm is certainly no objec" Even amongst us (the chosen people) there was no tion to this. exception." What more natural than to say "all of us also." If ndvrcs included both Jews and Gentiles, tJ/ici* would be quite superfluous ; and the emphatic teal rj^h would be unintelligible if cv 0T9 is connected by Slier with it included fytcis of w. x and 2. mpavTw/iacriv (which he thinks appropriate to Jews, as <2fuxpri'ais to are the Gentiles). His reasons are, first, that as viol rfc heathen, not all the unbelieving, it would not be suitable to reckon the Jews amongst them ; secondly, that the harshness of supposing that iv just now used with cvcpyowTos is immediately used with the same object in a different signification; and thirdly, that the parallelism of 2 and 3 compels us to take cV aU and cv 0T9 as parallel With the reading vfiuv adopted above in ver. 1 it is impossible thus to separate trap, from a/t. It might more plausibly be maintained that oh refers to both substantives, the feminine having been adopted only because a/*, was the nearest substantive, and the neuter being used where that reason does not exist But we cannot well avoid referring the relative to the nearest antecedent when that gives a suitable sense, and the change of verb from vpiiraTLV to avaorpifacrdat, which is more suitable if oU be persons, is in favour of this ; "amongst whom we also," belonging to the same class of the disobedient av<rrpd+i)}t*v. " Versabamur," "lived our life"; "speciosius quam ambulare," Bengel, but rather perhaps adopted because
irtiBol irpoadyerai ; dirtiOttav
could not be said. crapj, though primarily signifying the matter of the body, and hence the appetites arising from the body, is not to be limited to these, but includes the whole of the lower or psychical nature. In Rom. vii. it appears in the natural man as opposed to vofc or cyw in the higher sense ; in Rom. viii. in the regenerate it is opposed to irvcv/xa. Amongst the works of
wpiiraTiv Iv rots vlots
iv tous imOufiiais rfjs <rapn6$.
<rdp$ are "strifes," eta,
Gal. v.
"puffed up by the vovs of his
19, <rdp(."
22.
Compare CoL ii. 18, The mAp/cu of the flesh
44
[TL 3
are therefore not merely the bodily appetites, but in general what Butler calls "particular propensions." So here it includes vdp$
expresses the result in act of the Aiavouu is not found elsewhere In classical authors Stdvota means the with a bad signification. understanding, or a thought or purpose. In Aristotle virtue is
k.t.X.,
proper and &idv<xau voioGitcs tA cX^fftaroy

ivi&vfuai
;
there
is
no
tautology.
irpocupccri? fiera
koyov kol
Siavotas.
The
plural also is
used by
Plutarch in a good sense. In the N.T. it occurs frequently in a good sense, i Pet L 13, "girding up the loins of your 8"; 2 Pet " hath given us a iii. i, " I stir up your pure 8." ; 1 John v. 20, &"; cf. also ch. L 18. Harless conjectures that the plural here is used in the sense common in Greek writers, viz. purpose, the plural suggesting vacillation ; and he compares the use of awfnat in But this is Aristoph. Ran*, and " sapientiae " in Cic. Tusc. iii. 18.
It deserves notice that in ch. iv. 18 and CoL L 20, too refined. St Paul speaks of his readers having been "darkened in their Stavoto," and "enemies in their 8.* Here, while by no means admitting a hendiadys, " cogitationes carnales," we must at least allow that Siavotw acquires its bad significance from the preceding <rapK099 so that it nearly = " the <rap( and its Slavouu." This order, which is that of koI tificdo rUva +tf<m 6pyf)S. etc., Chrys. Lachmann the Text Rec, is established by K B tc'kvo, with Vulg. Syr-HarcL adopted The change from the participle to the finite verb need occasion no difficulty ; it is, in fact, required by the sense. Had ovrc? been written it would be co-ordinate with woiowrcs and subordinate to dv<rrpd(f>Tjfivy and explanatory of it, " doing the desires . . . and Whatever view is taken of the latter being the children . . . " Not merely, therefore, for clause, these two are not co-ordinate. emphasis, but because the latter is a distinct predication, co-ordinate with iv <* dvcorp., or, more exactly, expressing a consequence of " and so we were." that, the verb is in the indicative, T^KKa 6pyr\s is understood by many as = actual objects of God's wrath, rc'icva being used as suitable to Israel, and then by a sort of irony is added, not "of Abraham" or "of God," but "by nature of wrath." There could be no objection to such an interpretation if it corresponded with the context ; but here, if the actual wrath of God were intended, we should expect it to be defined by 0toi; or the article, or otherwise. But how strange, if not impossible, would be the expression " children of God's wrath " ; and especially so here, where in the same breath they are described as at the same time objects of God's love, without anything to soften the apparent Nor can it be said that this is at all implied in the opposition word tkvcu On the contrary, we have several instances in the Old Testament in which "son of" followed by a word denoting
^wm
ADGLP,
XL
3]
45
punishment cannot reasonably be given any other meaning than "worthy of," or "in danger of." Thus Deut xxv. 2, "If the wicked man be a son of stripes, the judge shall . . . cause him to be beaten before his face," etc.; rightly rendered in the Sept iav ouk f vkrrywv. 1 Sam. xxvi. 16 (David to Abner), "Ye are sons of death, because ye have not kept watch over your lord." 2 Sam. jriL 5 (David to Nathan), "The man that hath done this is a son of death." In these two passages the RV. has correctly "worthy to die," and in the former no other interpretation is possible. In 1 Sam. xx. 31, RV. has in the text (with AV.) "shall surely die," In Ps. lxxix. 1 1 and cii. 20, but in the margin "is worthy to die. "sons of death " are " those who are in danger of death." These instances, together with the indefiniteness of opyrfa justify us in understanding the words to mean " objects, i.e. fit objects of wrath," "deserving of wrath.* And so they are interpreted by Chrysostom, "We have provoked God to wrath, toot-coto, 6pyri yjfiiv teal ov&cv crcpov " (explaining that he who is dvOpvnrov
either
,,
Ttcvov is ay$pvnros).
"iravrts hrparropxv a(ia opyjjs."
Similarly
Oecumenius, " As those who do things worthy of perdition or of

are called tocvo tbrcuXcta? *ai yccw^ [e.g. 2 Thess. iL 3 n xxiii. 1 5] ourw kv<ris is opposed sometimes to vofiosj sometimes to 0cVis, dvaym;, etc., but does not necessarily mean "by birth." Rom. iL 14, the Gentiles do <f>v<ri ra rov vopav ; 1 Cor. xL 14, rj <wis teaches that if a man have long hair it is a shame. Josephus says of David that he was <f>vci Sucoio? kou $o<rfirj9 (Ant. viL 7. 1), and of the Pharisees <jfnW fatctirw? fycwiv (xiii. IO. 6). have ^wrci <<Aoyca>pyoraTos in Xen. Ote. xx. 25. Compare also Philo, De Con/. Zing. p. 327 E, AAA* ovk ArriXoyucol ycyovatriv Ixroi 1-17$ iwurrrj/jLTp koL dpcrqf fiJXov Here the It is, in fac used like our word "naturally." rxv. opposition suggested might be to x<*P"1 ; but as the Jews are in question, it is more probably to 0cVci, their covenant position as the people of God, by which they were holy branches of a holy root, to whom belonged the viodwla. (Rom. xL 16, 21). Jews, too, just as the heathen, were, apart from the covenant, TCKva opy&*
hell
Matt
We
"We
From the time of Augustine these words have been supposed by many to contain a direct assertion of original sin. Thus Calvin, " Paulus nos cum peccato gigni testatur, quemadmodum serpentes suum venenum ex utero ,r afferent But, first, this gives a very great emphasis to <f>6<ri, which its position forbids. Secondly, it supposes ical ifpeBa to refer to, or at least include, a time prior to iv oft d>., which seems not possible. Thirdly, it does not harmonise with the context That treats of actual sin (including, of course, character), and the immediate context of the Jews only. It would be natural
46
and
[XX.
intelligible that this description should be followed by mention of the wrath thereby incurred ; it would also be intelligible, though less natural, that it should be followed by a statement that in addition to this we inherited a sinful and guilty nature. The interpretation in question supposes that neither of these is mentioned ; the wrath incurred by actual sin is omitted, while that incurred by birth sin is mentioned without mention of its cause, which is left to be inferred. And fourthly, even this is stated expressly only of the Jews ; it is assumed as self-evident of the Gentiles, ol \<htoL The reader has to fill up the sentence somewhat in this way, " We fulfilled the desires of the flesh [and thus became objects of God's wrath ; and, in addition to this, we were even before committing any actual sin inheritors of a sinful nature, and so] already by nature objects of His wrath." It is true, indeed, that men are born with a sinful and corrupt nature ; but to say this is not to say that the infant who has committed no actual sin is an actual object of God's wrath ; still less does it prove that the apostle's words here imply it Chrysostom has no trace of such an interpretation ; in fact he seems even to regard these words as guarding against a similar interpretation ** That is [he says], o&tew TPw/tartKb* Qpwovrrtu of BeMjiuvra ffaptcfa. But that he may not be suspected of saying this in disparagement of the flesh, and lest one should think the offence not great, see how he guards himselC Fulfilling the desires, etc.; he (the apostle) says, we provoked God"; adding what has been quoted above. Jerome gives as alternatives, "Vel propter corpus humilitatis corpusque mortis et quod ab adolescentia mens hominum apposita sit ad malum." "Vel quod ex eo tempore quo possumus habere notitiam Dei, et ad pubertatem venimus, omnes aut opere aut lingua aut cogitatione peccemus. He mentions some who took <t>foci here to mean "prorsus"; cf. &kq$Gk or ynplw, Oecum.; but the word never has this meaning,
ol Xoiirot,
the heathen,
is
cf. i
Thess.
iv. 13.
4. 6 0* ecos
resumes from
with the subject; ovv

8c is
now
Jerome's comment is charac" Conjunctionem causalem in eo loco in quo ait: Deus autem etc. arbitramur aut ab indoctis scriptoribus additum et
teristic,
more suitable to be said with what precedes.
and now more usual in such a resumption; but here, on account of the contrast of what is
ver. 1 after the interruption,
vitium inolevisse paulatim, aut ab ipso Paulo, qui erat imperitus sermone et non scientia, superflue usurpatum." Erasmus' remark
is
more
correct,
"Hyperbati longioris
ambitum
ipse correxit
Apostolus."
irXooatos A? iv Acci, " being as He is " (the participle assigning M the reason), not simply i\*rj/iwvf but " rich in mercy (Chrys.). Compare Rom. ix. 23, " make known the riches of His glory on
construed with see Jas. iL 5, cV irurrt; and similarly the verbs 7tXovtciv, irXovrl&crdai (1 Cor. L 5). Compare the correspondence of cXco? and <brci0cta in Rom. xL 31. ayd-M) is not a particular form of Xco?, but is the cause from which, or by reason of which, cXco? was exercised Bid tV itoXXV &ydm\v$ "propter," Vulg. "for His great love" cf. Philem. 8, "for love's sake." fyy cognate accusative, a very common usage, both in classical and N.T. Greek. Here the
is
cv,
<tkvj) cAcovs." In classical writers irAovo-io? a genitive of the thing, but in the N.T. with
II. 6]
QUICKENED WITH CHRIST
47
addition rjv ^y. ij/ias, being not necessary to the sense, gives Nor is great emphasis to the expression of the Divine love. avrov to be neglected, " His love " marking more distinctly that it is from Him alone and His attitude of love that this mercy proceeds. 4p&s now includes both the v/tcfc of ver. 1 and the ^/ta? of ver. 3, and includes therefore both Jews and Gentiles.
The *ai does not signify "us also forbidden by the position of ij/ias (not kcu wufc), and for the same reason it does not resume the #c<u of ver. 1. It is best taken as "Even," "Even when we were dead," eta It is objected, indeed, that it is only the dead who can be "brought to life," and for this reason Meyer takes #ccu as the copula, "on account of His great love, and when we were dead"; but these two ideas are not co-ordinate. Soden, for the same reason, joins the words with the preceding, "loved us even when," This, no doubt, gives a good sense, although the antithesis etc. between "loved" and "when dead" is not very natural, whereas Besides, the that between v*povs and ^wHroityre is striking. proposed construction would require ifca* to be expressed with <rwt& not with ovTa*, since ijyain^rcv already has its object exBut the objection is hypercritical. The answer to it is, pressed. not that vcjc. is qualified by tois irapairr. which has no emphasis, nor that <rwc. is defined by tv XpconS. The true answer is found in the position of the verb. " Gave life even to the dead " would not be a natural mode of expression, but " Even the dead
6.
KolSrrosâs
which
pckoous.
altogether,"
is
He
restored to life"
is
perfectly natural.
The
koI oi/nw, k.t.A.,
attracts the reader's attention to
love about to be mentioned Indeed, it is not quite true that connexion is unambiguous. ((Doiroiciv can be only of the dead See John vi 63 compared with ver. 54 ; also 1 Cor. xv. 36 ; 2 Cor. iiL 6.
tovs irapaim&fiaaiôur trespasses, the trespasses already mentioned in ver. 1.
ovKctttoiroiiprc
some striking instance of God's Comp. Col. iL 13, where the
t Xpumf.
adds 4r after the verb with 17 Arm. and some other authorities,* reading admitted to the margin by Westcott and Hort, and in brackets by lachmann. It might, with equal ease, be omitted or inserted accidentally. There could be no reason for intentional omission, but it might be added intentionally from the construction being mistaken. It is observable that B, Arm. also insert 4r after weKpois, if, indeed, a version can be safely cited Internal evidence is against #r, as we get a better sense by in such a case. taking Xp&ry as dependent on aw.
Meyer, having understood ycicpovs to refer to future eternal death, of course understands <rw. as referring to the eternal life which begins with the resurrection. This view he regards as alone
48
[U. 6
consistent with the context in which the translation into heaven is expressed, and again in ver. 7 the times after the Parousia are referred to. His view then is, that God has made believers alive with Christ ; that is, that by virtue of the dynamic connexion of Christ with His believers as the Head with its body, their revivification is objectively included in His; "quum autem fides suscipitur ea omnia a Deo applicantur homini et ab homine rata habentur," BengeL The apostle therefore views this as having already taken place, although the subjective individual participation remains future, and he might have used the future as in x Cor. xv. 22. The peculiar use of the aorist here he refers to the principle thus stated by Fritzsche (on Rom. viii. 30, il p. 206), "Ponitur Aoristus de re, quae, quamvis futura sit, tamen pro peracta recte censeatur, quum vel alii re jam facta contineatur, ut h. 1., vel a conditione suspensa cogitetur, quam jam obtinuisse finxeris, v. Horn. //. iv. 161 ; John xv. 6." This usage was first explained by Hermann, "De emend, ratione graecae gr." pp. 190 ff., but, as stated by him, does not apply here. Of the two passages to which Fritzsche after Hermann refers, that from Homer is, says Hermann, the only instance known to me in which it may be reasonably questioned whether the aorist has not the signification of the future, viz. Horn. //. iv. 160-162. It is as follows :
cftrcp
yap re koX avruc 'OAvjurto? ovk

icai
ctA-coxtck,
Ik re
tyc
rcXci, <rvv re juyaXip direVurav,
avv
a<frQ<riv frcâA.^<ri
ywcuf1
rt nal rexecororiv.
rki9
Here the poet throws himself forward into the time of the verb and sees the instantaneous carrying out of this vindication of oaths as if he said, " And, lo at once they have paid the penalty." "Rem futuram non ut futuram sed ut praeteritam narrat: nimirum post quam Troianos punierit Iuppiter turn illi poenas dederunt " (Hermann). The other example is from John
;
!
xv. 6, lav
/X17
tis fiMtvy Iv
(fJLOty
iftXrjSrj lu) u>s
to kA^/ao, Kal $r)pa*$ij.
Here
also a condition
necessarily follows.
expressed from which the consequence Similarly Epictetus, cap. 59, iv vnlp Swafuv
is
,
dvaXtLp-gs T4 7rp6<r<i)TOVy Kal cv tovt<$ tfa'xrjfi6vrfa as$

iiar\rfpQKTat9 irapcXures (see Jelf, 403).
Kal 8 rj&vvatro
In the present passage, if (rwc{. is referred to the future, there is no resemblance to these instances. We have already seen, however, that vKpov<: includes present spiritual death, and that indeed as its primary notion, although it cannot be limited to that, since the consequence, natural and eternal death, is necessarily suggested with it Accordingly, the vivification, though primarily spiritual, includes in it our share in the resurrection and exaltation of Christ. In L 20, 21 the writer has pointed to the resurrection and exaltation of Christ
XL 6]
QUICKENED WITH CHRIST
49
as an exhibition of Divine power ; here he declares that by virtue of our union with Him as of members with the head, we participate " Quamvis salus nostra in spe sit adhuc abscondita in the same. quantum ad nos spectat: in Christo nihilominus beatam immortalitatem possidemus," Calvin. CoL ii. 13 is closely parallel. The fact that baptism is there referred to as the means by which
the individual entered subjectively into fellowship with Christ, and not mentioned here, does not justify the adoption of a different meaning for <rwc. here, such as that of Harless, whose view is that the risen life and glorification of Christ are here spoken of as ours, because they are the glory of " our " Redeemer.
is
Chrysostom's comment is ci ^ ciirapxy tv> Kai Vf1"*' K<**xo(r)<rt ckcIiw evepycup, rjfias, to which Theophylact adds <rw- clearly "with ^ftas oWa/ACt vwf fur oktyov 8k icai vtpyiaa
:
Koxilvov *al
Christ," Col.
ii.
13.
vawrîvoi. "It is by grace that ye have been saved," a lively parenthetical reminder suggested by the preceding words, and vindicating the expression " vivified when dead." Being dead, ye could do nothing of yourselves, so that it must needs be all by grace, />. simply by God's free gift. are so accustomed to use " grace " in a technical theological sense, that we are prone to think of that sense where it does not really come in. This technical sense of "grace" as something conferred is not in question here, and any reference to the distinction between prevenient and co-operating grace, etc, is out of place. The word is used just as in royal letters the words "by our special
X&pw
,<rre
We
grace and mere motion."
DG,
Vulg.
al. prefix off
(D
off
rg) to X<*/kti.
The perfect core o-cow/xo'oi here is in striking contrast with the aorist cVco^/icv in Rom. viiL 24, rjj yap cA.7rc8t cV. But the perfect is as suitable here as it would have been unsuitable there, where it would contradict cAm'&. Then, what was to be said had reference to the definite moment of the readers' introduction into the Christian Church, and the point was that the aianjpta obtained at that definite moment was in part a matter of hope. Here it is not a past moment that is in question, as if x<"$ was over and done with, but the readers' present condition as the continuing result of their conversion. In one sense their aamjpCa was complete, viz. regarded with respect to that from which they were delivered; in another incomplete, viz. with respect to that which was reserved for them. So to persons rescued from a wreck, but not yet arrived in port, we might say either cVatfiprc or o-ca-axr/xevoi cVrc 6. aumfrctpc is nearly synonymous with owc&ixwroti/o-c, but suggests more distinctly physical resurrection. In Col. iiL 1, as here, the lytpOrjvat <rirv Hpurru is treated as past, and is made the motive 4
50

life
[EL 7
for seeking those things
which are above, ". . . for ye died, and hid with Christ in God." The present passage expresses this more vividly and strikingly, owc*adurcv cv rots nrov paWois. "Non dicit in dextra; Christo sua manet excellentia," Bengel (and so Estius less tersely). cV rots cV. denotes the true or Comp. ideal locality of the Church as the " kingdom of heaven." Heb. xiL 22, irpoo-cAÂvlarc . . . iroXci 0cov a>vros, 'IcpovouAq/i
your
is
iwovpavup. iv Xpun-f after trw- has caused some perplexity, and led some commentators to understand the <rw- in ver. 6 (not in ver. 5) as joining v/t"? and together. But it seems better to under-
faU
stand cv X. as completing and defining with more precision what was intended by ow, for it is not simply together with Christ that this vivification and exaltation takes place, but also in Him, by virtue of union with Him as the Head. 7. Iv* ciciT|Tai. The middle does not mean "for His own glory," nor does the language of the verse suggest the idea of showing as a sample or specimen. The verb seldom occurs in the active voice except as a legal expression, never in N.T. The middle involves no more than is already contained in avrov, as the instances show: Rom. il 15, "show the work of the law written in their hearts " ; 2 Cor. viii. 24, " showing the frScifc of your love and of our boasting" ; 2 Tim. iv. 14, " Alexander the coppersmith iroAAo fuu #ca#ca cVcSctfaTo." See also Tit iL 10, iii. 2 ; Heb. vi. 10, 11. These instances also show that the word means, not " make known," but " exhibit in fact or act" iv tois afore rocs circpxopli'ois. "In the coming ages." It seems more suitable to the context, as well as to the use of parallel expressions, to understand this of the future life, 6 aliov o fUXXwv, in which the state described in the preceding words will be actually realised and made manifest. The present participle is not against this, for in Mark x. 30 we have 6 <uo>v 6 cpx^cvos in this The plural may at first sight seem against it, but is not sense. really so ; it only indicates that the apostle viewed the future age as involving stages of development in which the exceeding riches of God's grace will be more and more clearly manifested, and that becomes actual, the knowledge of which is mentioned as the object of desire in L 18. Compare the frequent expression cfe rot* aftoras iw atuvvv, also Jude 25, els ir&vras tovs cuum?; and the remarkable expression, 1 Tim. i. 17, t<j> /WiAct tw cuwiw. These cuupc? may be regarded as constituting a whole in contrast to the present life, and so be named in the singular 6 at. 6 /icAAtuv. to direppdXXoK itXoutos ttJs x^P tT5 aurou. The neuter irAovrot is best supported here. In modern Greek the word is indifferently masculine or neuter. These words are to be so connected, cV xpt|rror|Ti $' ^||Mte.
H.8]
not vvcppdWov
l<f>*
SALVATION BY GRACE
ijfuis.
SI
To exhibit x^P'? xPVirr^Tr^ would be the absence of the article any objection, for XP170TOT17S implies, not merely an inherent quality, but one which involves in its idea exercise towards another, so that it requires to be completely defined by the expression of this object iv Xpiorw 'lijtrou. The ground of this kindness shown towards us is in Christ, not in us. As Calvin remarks, " Notanda repetitio
tautological.
Nor
is
nominis Christi quia
nihil
gratiae
neque amoris a Deo
sperari
vult, nisi ipso intercedente."
8. tjj yap x^P lT h k.t.X. How justly I say " the exceeding riches of His grace," for, etc. The apostle now speaks in more detail about the truth of which his mind was so fulL x<*P4ri has *ke article, because it is the grace already mentioned rUrreon without the Article, Rec. has the 17, Chrys. with D L and most cursives. This is the subjective condition, the "causa apprehendens," the necessary medium on the siae of man, " the living capacity for receiving the powers of the higher world," Olshausen. The whole emphasis is on rj gopm. The article before rUrreut would imply that its possession was presupposed: "yourfeith."
article,
&A
ABD*GP
which kcI ravra is more frequent in by the Fathers, Chrysostqm, Theodoret, and Jerome, to "faith." Thus Chrysostom says ov$k y ttiotk 4 yfivv, cl yap ovk rfXBcv, cl yap firj fcaXco-c, w<3$ rjOwdficda iriOTCVoxu ; irm yap, îprt, iriaTcvo-owiv cay pr) dVcovcoxriv. He proceeds to interpret the words ftcov ro &apov as applying, not to faith, but to
aol tovto,
(for
"and that"
classical writers), is referred
the grant of salvation on condition of faith, cVcl irS* crwfci 7} wmttis, cfirtf fun, dVcv Ipyayv; tovto avro >cov SwpoV lamv. This is not very different from what Theophylact says: 06 rip morur Acyct iwpov 0ou, aAAa to $ia itiotccos o-wOfjvcu, tovto 8a>poV iort 0cov. Modern commentators (Erasmus, Beza, Bengel, etc) who have adopted the view that tovto refers to irurm, understand the meaning to be that the power or exercise of faith (faith subjectively considered) is the gift of God (as Phil. L 29), in which case #cal rodro to 8<Spov must be parenthetical, since to say that faith is not i( cpywv would be trivial in the extreme. The gender of tovto is not fatal to the reference to irrro, but to separate l( tyulv in this way from i( Ipymv does violence to the connexion. The latter is a nearer definition of the former. Recent commentators refer #cal tovto to owokt/acvoi core, or, better, to the whole clause ; for after xapt" had been expressed with ow., the emphatic ical tovto would be out of place. In fact, the apostle emphasises and defines rfj x> more closely by denying the opposites ; first, of the objective source x^P 1 * by ovk i v/uav ; and, secondly, of the subjective element by ovk i( cpyw (Meyer). 6cou to o6por. God's is the gift = kov owpoy to oupoV icn^
. ;
$2
<n)

being placed
first
[XL 0, 10
for the
sake of the emphatic contrast with
0. oAr c{ $pyw. He does not say tyywv vopov, because not writing to Jewish believers. De Wette (who does not accept the Pauline authorship) thinks the opposition in ovk i( ipyw has no meaning, since the writer is not thinking of Jews, and heathen believers did not need to be warned against taking pride in the righteousness of works, especially after what had preceded in w. i and 5. But the ovk c Ipywv was such' an essential principle of St Paul's teaching that no doubt he must have often repeated it amongst both Jews and Gentiles ; nor is there any force in the reference to the past condition of the readers. Might not Gentile converts be tempted to regard their salvation as secured by their new holiness of life ? and not the less because their former sins were when they were in darkness. tm pf\ ns Koux^cn)Tau Some commentators insist on giving fva its full final force, " in order that " ; so that to prevent boasting was God's purpose, or one of His purposes, in appointing that men should not be justified by works. Are we then to say that, in order that men should not boast, He has refused to allow salvation or justification by works ? Nay ; but no man can be justified by his works, and " when they have been betrayed by these," God appointed that He should save them x*PtTl *** irurrcaK. So in substance Chrysostom and Theophylact, whose words are to yap Iva ofa alriokoyucov eort, dXX' k ti}s diroj&urca)? tow wpdyfuiTos. Yet the clause is not to be reduced to a mere statement of result, since it is a result inseparable from God's purpose. Stier suggests that ka, ict.X., may be viewed as the expression of the writer's purpose: "This I say in order that," etc. This cannot fairly be called unnatural, but it would require the verb to be present. 10. oAtou y&p <7fiK why) pa ktio61it$ K XpioTw irl Jpyois dyaOoif Proof of the foregoing clauses from ovk }( v/ju5vy not of Iva ns . If we are God's workonly, which is only a secondary thought manship, our salvation is not our own work, but the gift of God and if we are created in Christ for good works, there could be no works preceding this creation from which any merit could arise. The argument turns on avVov, which is emphatic, " His workmanship we are/' and on #ctmt0cVts ; and the following words still more distinctly express the impossibility of any merit preceding this
:
KTUTIS.
woftiiML,
Here, too,
creation.
KTio-tfcjTcs,
found again only Rom. L 20 of the works of creation. referred by Tert. Greg. Naz. and Basil to physical This is refuted by the nearer definition given in k.t.A. Pelagius includes both the physical and the
it is
spiritual, "quod vivimus, quod spiramus, quod intelligimus, quod credere possumus, ipsius est, quia ipse conditor nostri est" The word can hardly of itself be used simply of the new or spiritual
U. 10]
CREATED FOR GOOD WORKS
53
creation ; it may perhaps be chosen to suggest strongly the analogy of this to the first creation, the nature of this Trolrjpa being left to be defined by the following words. Perhaps we may better say that the apostle's mind was so full of the idea of the " new man," that he writes as if this new creation might be regarded as the first " making " of us.
rrurWrrcs. "Created"; for if anyone is in Christ, he is koo^ KTm, 2 Cor. v. 17; compare also Gal. vL 15. ktLIuv is appropriately used of the /caivo? avOpwiros, the coming into being of which is called iraXiyycvccria, Tit iil 5. We are not, then, to weaken it into "efrkere." cV Xpwr(f 'I. cV expresses Cf. ver. 15 and 2 Cor. v. 17, above, the fellowship in which that new creation takes place. cirt, with the dative, is used to express the cirl 3pyoi$ dyaOoic. condition upon which a thing happens or is done ; for instance,
the conditions of a treaty cV foots, cVi iracrt Succu'ots, cVi frrjroU, cV Apyvpup, cVi rjj rov avSpos ifrvxfj (Plato, Rep. ix. p. 590 A) ; oavcicu' cVi inro&qtcri (Dem. p. 908, 21). Hence the expression c' yrc Many, if not most, of the instances adduced in support of the meaning, "with a view to such and such an end," are better êxplained by this usage, e.g. Scfyxp cVi peyaAfp in Horn. IL x. 304, rfc kcV fioc tooc Ipyov virocrxofrcvos rcXciorcicv 8<op<p hn /*., certainly not "with a view to," but "on the terms of receiving"; IL ix. 482, ftovvov, n/XvycTov, n-oAAoTcrtv hr\ kti&xwvw ; and V. 1 54, " he begat no other son," cVi xrcarcorort AttrcVlat, the possessions being an accompanying condition of the sonship. So also in such phrases as cirl mp Bx*<rOai or #caXctv; âcrjcovrc? cV cXcv0cptv (Dem. p. 661, 16); cV* l\tvd*pia (twos #rarart0cvai
Xprjfuara) (tb. p. 1355, 18).
kqX
i<f>*

fiff
tpyaJfarBai,
the last instance, not in that preceding) that something be granted, the meaning amounts to the same as " with a view to " ; but this does not seem to be contained in the preposition. Indeed, the following words, teal l<f>* $, c.r.X., appear to decide the signification of cm' here.
the condition
is (as in
Where
v. 13, cV IXcvOtpCa iKXij$rfr means, not freedom was the end or object, but the condition of their calling, the terms on which they were called, viz. so as to be free. Again, 1 Thess. iv. 7, ov yap cVaArv ^/xa? 6 cos cVi &tca$ap<rla. Not on such terms were we called, not so that we should be
Similarly in Gal.
that
impure.
In the following words, dXXa,
cV ayuur/up, cV
appears to
be preferred, because dyiaoyxos did not express any outward condition. 2 Tim. ii. 14, cVi KaraoTpotfj rcov dxovovrcov "with a view to," would be clearly out of place ; " to the subverting" gives the
sense correctly.
it
It is the inevitable concomitant.
Here Ipya
6ya$d are not the object of the new creation, but are involved in
as an inseparable condition.
54
[IL 10
The ots irpoT)ToifMurcv 6 6cfe Ira cr ad-rot? ircpiiraT^rwjMr. The most obvious explanaconstruction here is much disputed. tion is that oT? is in the dative by attraction, " which God before prepared" Then we ask in what sense can works be said to have been prepared, since they have no existence previous to their being done. An easy answer appears to be, that they are appointed, and so, though not realised in fact, are realised in the divine thought or purpose. This is the view taken after Augustine by Harless, who thinks this the only possible sense here, since the apostle expressly adds that the actual realisation is expected from Thus St Paul uses irpocroi/iofco' here of things, in the believers. De the same sense as he had used wpoopifav in L 1 1 of persons. Wette and Braune, etc., agree. The difficulty in this view is that " Aliud est enim, parare crot/Aofriv, aliud irotpdtiv is not = bpL&iv. w (Fritzsche, Rom. iiL 339). The instance which definite 6piv Harless cites from Matt xxv. 34, " the kingdom prepared," is not
parallel,
nor Gen.
xxiv. 14.
Meyer, etc, reject this view, " God (says Ellicott) to give a satisfactory interpretation. made ready for us, prearranged, prepared a sphere of moral action, or (to use the simile of Chrys.) a road, with the intent that we should walk in it and not leave it: this sphere, this road, was cpya aya$d" Similarly Eadie, who suggests that irpooptfaiv marks the destination, irpocroi/m. the means : " they have been prescribed, defined, adapted to us," "by prearranging the works in their sphere, character, and suitability, and also by preordaining the law which commands, the inducement or appliances which impel, and the creation in Christ which qualifies and empowers us," etc But he does not explain how things non-existent can be arranged except by ordaining. These interpretations do not essentially differ from the first
this reason Ellicott, Eadie,
For
fail
but
The similes of a sphere or a road (used by Chrysostom for homiletical purposes) are inappropriate road exists objectively truer simile would be a path through before one walks in it the seas. Perhaps we might say that the word irpotr. is chosen, not as being logically accurate, but in order to express in the most striking manner the truth that the good works do not proceed from ourselves ; they are, as it were, received from the Creator as out of a treasure, which is thus figuratively conceived as being prepared before But this hardly meets the difficulty. Olshausen understands that the circumstances and conditions under which it becomes possible to do good works are ordered by God, wpocr. differing from irpooplfav only as relating more to details (compare Eadie, above). Stier suggests taking the verb intransitively, ots being the " For which God made previous preparadative of reference.
IL
11]
THE GENTILES AT ONE TIME ALIENS

The
simple verb
croifuurcu
crot/Aafcu' is
55
used intransitively in Luke however, is not entirely parallel. The object to be understood there is readily supplied, "panne paranda"; just as in English we may say "prepare," " make ready," viz. " things. 11 But here we should have to ask, Prepare what? The answer would perhaps be "us." And as Fritzsche points out, this 17/Aa? as the object did not require to be
tion."
ix.
52,
wore
avr$.
This,
expressed, since
it is
sufficiently indicated
by the following words,
This seems, after all, the most unobjectionable interpretation, and is adopted by Reuss, v. Soden, Oltramare, etc. Eadie also expresses himself as inclined to adopt it, if it could be fully justified, but he does not refer to the suggestion of ij/ww contained in the following words. This interpretation cannot fairly be charged with making tva cV avrofc ircptiranThese words strongly accentuate the a<Dfto> a mere tautology. moral purpose of the preparation. The supposition of a Hebraism, as if ok ... fr avrois were = iv oU, is inadmissible. vpo has its proper force, not, however, as if it meant before the *rtW, as cr. expresses an act, not a purpose ; and, of course, not after, because of irpo-, therefore at the time of the ktutis, so that
tva cV avroi? ircptirariprw/Acv.
frotfiacti' repeats rri'civ cVl ip. dy., only with the addition of irpo to express that the new creation is the primary thing but has this end in view, the works being only a result. It must be observed that ipya ayaOd is general ; not toU dy. fyyots, the definite good
works, etc.
There
is
no ground
for saying that the weight here assigned
to good works goes beyond what is elsewhere expressed by St Paul, as Baur insists, or that the importance of faith is lessened. Here, as elsewhere, works have their ground in faith. Bengel well says : " ut ambularemus, non salvaremur, aut viveremus" 11-22. Ye Gentiles were formerly aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and had no share in the covenants of promise ; but Christ by His death has cast dawn the barrier which separated you from the City of God, and has reconciled you both to God. Now, therefore, all alike have access to Him, the Father, and all alike form part of the holy temple which He inhabits. 11. Aid |AKT]fM)KcuT. These blessings should move them to
think
more of
thankful roborat"
their former state, so that they should be the more "Talis recordatio gratum animum acuit, et fidem Aid is best taken as referring to the whole section,
w.
to 10. hot* 6pci$ in this order Vulg. wari, with c (prefixes ot to mni), Syr. Hard. Boh. and some other versions have wore after iOvrj.
1
du
K*ABD*
Rec
But
has fycfe
Syr. Pesh.
D G
12,
by in,
ver.
and wore by
t<J>
cup<3 c*.
is
d is resumed Hence we need not
supply either dWes or $re, but t& lQw\
in simple apposition to v/mic
56
tA
[IL 11
<rapici
lOwrj, with the article as indicating a class. Since l&vr) iv expresses one single idea, the article does not require reiv ouptci must have the same sense here as in petition before iv. the following clause, since the former is explained by oi Acyo/icvot
aKpoftwTTuiy
and this has its antithesis in 1-7? Acy. ttc/hto/i^. It therefore refers to their uncircumcision, not to their former carnal Chrysostom and other Fathers take state, nor to their descent
opposed to iv irvcvpiTi. Thus Jerome : " Ephesios in carne vocans ostendit in spiritu esse non gentes." This contradicts irorc and ver. 12. The apostle is not exalting them, but calling attention to their previous inferiority to the Jews. 11 Remember that formerly ye Gentiles in the flesh called (in contempt) Uncircumcision by the so-called Circumcision in the flesh, a circumcision merely physical, made with hands." He reminds them of the ignominy which in the mind of the Jews attached to the name of heathen and of the uncircumcised. This contempt is already predicated in the words ol Xcyrfpcvot a*p. ; and the lowness of their condition is further shown by the following description of those who so despised them, those, namely, who prided themselves on a mere fleshly distinction made with hands. Why, in fact, does he say keyofievrjs ircptrofu;?, and why \tipvirovfr tov ? There was no need to give the readers information on the name or the fact The latter word is clearly depreciatory, "a merely external and artificial thing-19 But he is far from depreciating circumcision, in its true significance, as the sign of membership of the commonwealth of the people of God. Hence the use of kMyoftirrjqt which by its adjectival connexion with irc/Mro/up gets the signification " so called." This is readily explained from the apostle's use of ircpiro/417 elsewhere in a spiritual, as contrasted with a merely physical sense, as in Rom. iL 28, 29, "Neither is that circumcision which is outward in the flesh . . . circumcision is that of the heart, in the spirit, not in the letter." Phil. iL 2, he calls the physical circumcision Kararop.^ a term more contemptuous than xuP7rol VTOV here adding in ver. 3, " We are the circumcision, who worship by the Spirit of God and glory in Christ Jesus, and have no confidence in the flesh"; and in Col. ii. n, which is strikingly illustrative of the present passage, " in whom ye were circumcised with a circumcision not made with hands." Soden thinks that x c'P<""7'rov here is superfluous, because there
iv a-apKi as
:
is
no reference
(as in Col.) to
spiritual circumcision,
and
iv a-apKt
emphasises the merely external character of the sign and hence he thinks the word introduced out of imitation of Col. But it seems, on the contrary, to give emphasis and comiL 1 1. pleteness to the thought, and would naturally occur to the writer CoL who about the same time wrote ax lPoir0LVTOV Although "circumcision" is not used figuratively in the O.T*
sufficiently
IL
13]
THE GENTILES AT ONE TIME ALIENS
$7
"uncircumcision"is. Even in Lev. xxvi. 41 we have "their uncircumcised heart" Jeremiah speaks of the uncircumcised ear of those who will not hearken (VL 10), and calls the house of Israel "uncircumcised in heart" (ix. 26). Comp. Ezek. xliv. 7, "uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh," and Acts
viL 51.
icaip$ liccwp xwP^ Xpurrou. Rec. has Iv before omitted by K A B G. " Remember, I say, that" 3t* resumes the former oru XpurroC is taken by De Wette and Bleek as, not a XpW predicate, but a circumstantial addition, "being at that time without Christ" It would thus correspond with iv Xptcrrf, ver. 13, and would give the reason of their alienation from the commonwealth of Israel. But, considering the position of the words, this is a harsh construction, and would deprive the words of the emphasis which belongs to them as the opposite of the frequent Meyer says, the first tragic iv Xp. in this Epistle. x<"P'* XP- k
Id.
8n
4jtc
t$
r$
Kot/cxG.
It is
predicate,
\upfe
is
distinguished from
vcv
by Tittmann as
"xwpi? ad subjectum quod ab objecto sejunctum est refertur, &vcv ad objectum quod a subjecto abesse cogitandum est" According to this, x>p Xp. would mean "ye were far from Christ" ; cfccv Xp. would be " Christ was not with you." But this
follows:
must be received with hesitation, seeing that \<opU occurs in the N.T. forty times, and avcv only thrice (Ellicott), viz. Matt x. 29; 1 Pet iil 1, iv. 9. In the last quoted passage aytv yoyyva/xov is
equivalent to x*>pfc yoyyvtr/xwv, Phil. ii. 14. Schwegler sees here a concession to Judaism which is unlike St Paul ; but without reason, since the concession only relates to pre-Christian times, and the advantage possessed by the Jews in this respect is, as it must be, fully admitted by St Paul (Rom. iii. 1 ff.). What is meant by x*>pts XpurroO is explained in the following
words
dmf|XXoTpu*|Uii
1%
iv.
iroXiTCios too
'icrpa^X.
The
verb AvaAAo21,
r/Mbw occurs also in without a genitive.
18, An*, rip {wip rov 0cou,
and CoL L
in 3 Mace. L 4, twv Eccles. xL 34, Air. <rc twv 181W <rov. The verb always means to estrange ; here therefore "estranged from" as opposed to "being at home in." iroXiTcta was interpreted by the ancients in the sense " manner of life," " conversation Vulg., a meaning which the word frequently has in Christian writers, and not in these alone; see Athen. i. p. 19 A. But to take it so here would be contrary to ver. 19, where the It may mean either citizenopposite of Air. K.T.X. is crvfuroAtrtu. Many commentators have taken ship, or state, commonwealth. It is questionable whether it could be so it in the former sense.
xiv. 5, 7 irarptwv 8oy/uro>v.
In Ezek.
we have &v. air* i/iov; The active verb occurs
in
58
[IL Id
used with a genitive of the nation or city. Nor does the verb &m)W. suggest such a meaning. Besides, the Greek and Roman conception of citizenship would not be appropriate here, and, further, we should have to explain the exclusion from citizenship as arising from exclusion from the commonwealth. Naturally it is the theocratic constitution from which they were excluded ; and the name Israel implies this, since this was the name of the people in their theocratic relation. Yet Chrysostom refers the words to the exclusion of the Gentiles from the temporal glories of Israel, cti-c ircpi T(l)v ovpavuav irpay/iarcov, Xlyct teal ircpt twv rrJ9 yifo hrttZt) /uydkrpr ho(ay ctôv ircpi avraJv ol 'Iov&uoc, in which he was
followed by some moderns (as by Grotius). As if any Roman citizen or subject could regard as a misfortune the exclusion from a State which was an object of contempt Many commentators suppose that dÂA. implies a previous unity. Thus Bengel " Abalienati, non alieni ; participia praesupponunt gentes ante defectionem suam a fide patrum imo potius ante lapsum Adami fuisse participes lucis et vitae." However attractive this view may be in itself, the conception is too new and important to be introduced here on so slight a ground. If it had been in the apostle's mind, he would doubtless have referred to it more explicitly in some part of his writings. It is not hinted at in ver. 14, where we might have expected "again made" or the For an instance of the verb being used without reference to like. a previous state, see Ps. lvii. (lviii.) 3, &mfXkorpiÔrfauv ol d/AaprwAol &w6 ivqrpas. Olshausen's view is that the exclusion referred to is that which resulted from God's restriction of His peculiar operations of grace to Israel As far as alienation from God is referred to, however, it is true that men are regarded as originally, and from an ideal point of view, at one with God. further specification xal iivo\. t&v 8ia0i)Ruv t% fcrayvcXias. of what is meant by the preceding clause, l&o? is followed by a genitive, not of "the point of view" ("extraneos quod ad pactorum promissiones attinet," Beza), but simply of separation So Soph. Oed. JR. 219, (cvos Xoyov rov$ icpw or privation. Plato, ApoL L, *> (fxlv) *"?* &0a& cfoc 82 rov vpax$vros.
:
Xcca>?.
covenants of the promise." tirayy. is connected with not with AiriSa, as the position of the word shows. The covenants were characterised by the promise of the Messiah (cf. Acts xiiL 32). The plural is used with reference to the covenants with the patriarchs, but the Mosaic covenant is not excluded, although it was primarily vofioOto-ia. The absence of the article shows that it is IXirCSa (if) *xolrr $not the definite hope of the Messiah that is meant, but hope in the widest sense, so that the expression is so much the stronger,
StaftpccSv,
"The
IL
18]
THE GENTILES NOW BROUGHT NIGH
59
"having no hope." is used, not because the thought is firj dependent on what precedes, but because it is their own consciousness that is referred to. owe fyoiTc? would express only Cf. ovk tioorc? dV, Gal. the writer's judgment of their state.
iv.8. cat Mcoi. "The deepest stage of heathen misery," Meyer. The word cWcos is not found in the Sept or Apocrypha, and only here In Greek writers it occurs in three senses, "not in the N.T. believing in God, atheist" (Plato, ApoL p. 26 C).^ Secondly, " impious, godless " (Plato, Legg. p. 966 E), or " without God, lrvparov without God's help," Soph. Oed. J?., &rcl a0eos a<iAo* 3
understand it here as " forsaken by God " would be to introduce a conception not warranted by the expressions in the text They were truly "without God," as not knowing Him. Notwithstanding their many gods, they had no conception of a Creator and Governor to be loved and trusted. So far as their But God had consciousness was concerned, they had no God. not left Himself without a witness amongst them. The description This was is general, of the class to which the readers belonged. not the occasion for referring to the noble exceptions to the moral degradation of heathenism. It was, indeed, in Asia Minor that this degradation was lowest, so that the Romans traced to it the corruption which spread to the whole empire. Jr t^ k<xt|a$, to be joined both with ikvlSa fir) fy. and with <!0cot, " the world," with all its troubles, trials, and uncertainties,
SXoLfiav.
To
ye were without Divine help ; generally understood as contrasted

with vokvrtla.
iyyifc.
18. vuia %k iv XpurnJ 'Itjctou, fi|Mi$ 01 mrk Sires patcpAf cycnfy6i|TC wvi opposed to Tip *aip<j> kcivu. iv Xp, 'I. opposed to
vcopU Xpurrov. are not to supply either l<rri or oitcs. Since the being in Christ was not prior to the being brought near, the interpretation, "postquam in Christo estis recepti" (Calvin, Harless), is not admissible. Nor can we understand " cum in Christo sitis recepti," which would not only make these words a superfluous addition, but would be hard to reconcile with the aorist 'Itjoou is suitably added to XpurrQ here, and indeed was almost necessary to the distinct expression of the thought. In ver. 1 a it could not have been added, since that included times ** preceding the incarnation, and xuP'* would imply the P existence of the historical Jesus then ; whereas here, not only the Messiah as such is referred to, but the personal Jesus as the Christ and the Saviour. iror oktc* patcpdv corresponds to the expressions dm/XAorpunfivoiy K.T.X. fMKpdv and fyyw, then, have reference both to the Tro\iTia rov *Icr. with its Statical, and to the IXiri? with God Himself. Accordingly in the following verses we have two points
We
; ;
60
[H. 14
of view combined, viz. the reconciliation of the Gentiles to God, and their admission to the iroAircia of Israel, namely, the true Israel the Christian Church. The terms fiaxpay and lyyv* were suggested by Isa. IviL 19, " Peace, peace to him that is far off, and to him that is nigh.'9 There, indeed, as in Acts ii. 39, the words have a local meaning, and have no reference to the admission of Gentiles to the theocracy but they easily lend themselves to this conception, and, in fact, were frequently used by Rabbinic writers with reference to proMany passages may selytes, who were said to be " brought near." be seen in Schoettgen and Wetstein. One may be quoted. "A woman came to R. Eliezer confessing certain gross sins, and asked to be made a proselyte, saying, 'Rabbi, propinquam me fac'; on hearing her sin he rejected her. She went to R. Joshua, who received her. His disciples said, * R. Eliezer illam removit, tu vero
,w earn propinquam facis? lyyjfe yfrcffftai, frequent in classical writers, but not found elsewhere in the N.T.
The order
DGKLP.
B, 17. Rec has iyy. #yer., with iywjHfi^rt tyyfo is that of Ellicott thinks the Rec genuine, the order here adopted being
KA
due to a mistaken correction of the emphatic juxtaposition of ftaKp&v and Harless is of the same opinion. But why should copyists correct iyyfo. this emphatic juxtaposition ? It is just what would strike an ordinary reader. Looking closer, we see that the opposition is not merely between these two, but between 6rnt /uucpd* and tycrfftrjTt iyyfo, and that the verb is properly placed in the most emphatic position.
mentality.
t$ atjum tou Xpurrou more particularly defines the instruIt is not possible to draw any satisfactory distinction between this and && rov at. L 7. 14. afro* ydp lanv 4) elf^n) ^j*wk, " He Himself is our peace " He has not brought about peace by a mere external action or arrangement; it is in His own person that He gives it "Non modo pacificator nam sui impensa pacem peperit et ipse vinculum est utrorumque," Bengel. The context shows that what is primarily intended is the union of Jews and Gentiles ; but as it was not this union of itself that was of importance, but the essential basis of it, as the union of both in one body of Christ, it is manifest that the idea of peace with God could not be absent from the mind of
cV
Comp. ver. 1 7. 17 tlprjvrj ûuv. Schoettgen quotes a Rabbinic writer who calls the Messiah " Peace," in allusion to Isa. ix. 6. " Quippe qui" 6 iroi^cras. tA dptercpa Ik. Both, i.e. both Jews and Gentiles. There is no ellipsis (as of yen;, Wvrj, or the like). It is simply an instance of the neuter being used of persons in a general sense ; cf, Heb. viL 7, t& ZXarrov vtto tov KptCrrovo^ cvAoycirai; I Cor. L 21, 28,
the apostle in writing
H. 14]
TO
fXiOpk

TOV KOCTfLOV
. .
.
6l
TO
OJjQtVJ)
(oppOSed tO
VCF. 26, ol (TOÔt).
So
in classical Greek, eg.

Iv.
Xen.
,<4#a. viL 3. 11,
to ^cvyovra ucavol
i<r6fx$a Si<LkIv.
Comp. GaL
iiL
28, fl-aVrcs
/u.ct$
v core fr
Xpunrw
*lrj<rov.
Not, says Chrysostom, that He has brought us to that nobility of theirs, but both us and them to a greater ; as if one should melt down a statue of silver and one of lead, and the two should come out gold. icai, exegetical = inasmuch as, He, t& pccrrfToixor tou ^paypou Xifoas, " brake down the partition wall of the fence." lucrtroixov is a rare word, found, besides the Fathers, only in Eratosth. qp. Athen. vii. 281 D (masc.), and Hesychius. The genitive has been variously explained, as of quality = " the separating
' (against which is the fact that this adjectival notion belongs to fuaoroixov itself); or of possession, "the wall which belonged to the fence " ; or better, of apposition, " the partition which consisted in the fence." ^pay/ufc means a fence, hedge, or enclosure, not a separation. It seems probable that the figure was suggested by the partition which separated the Court of the Gentiles from the temple proper, and on which there was an inscription threatening death to any That the Ephesian readers can hardly be alien who passed it. supposed to be familiar with the arrangements of the temple, is no proof that these may not have been in the apostle's mind. But it is worth noticing that it was an Ephesian, Trophimus, that St Paul was charged with bringing into the temple. more serious objection seems to be, that when the Epistle was written But the apostle is not the wall referred to was still standing. speaking of the literal wall, but using it as an illustration. Any reference to the vail which was rent at the time of the crucifixion would be out of harmony with the context That vail did not
partition
separate Jews and Gentiles. Xoaas is suitable to the figure; cf. John ii. 19, kvcrart rbv vabv rovrov. It is equally suitable to the following *xOpav, since kfaiv tyOpav is of frequent occurrence in classical writers. Here it is questioned whether IxBpav is to be connected with the words preceding or those following, and if with the preceding, whether lv rfi aapKi avrov is to be taken with Avcras or with
KardpyTjo-as.
Another
alternative
will
be mentioned presently.
:
We have to
choose, then, between the following renderings Having done away with the middle wall, namely, the enmity having in His flesh annulled the law. Having in His flesh done away with the middle wall, namely, the enmity, etc Having done away with the middle wall, having in His flesh annulled the enmity, namely, the law, etc.
62
[IL 14
The view which connects cV rjj oupxi avrov with IxOpav as = the enmity in his flesh, whether "his flesh" be understood to mean humanity in general (Chrys.) or the Jews (cf. Rom. xL 14), must be set aside as inconsistent with the absence of the article before cv rfi a-aptcC The first-mentioned interpretation gives an awkward isolation to cx#pav, and adds the harshness of making the specification of manner, cv rg o\, precede the object and its verb. The third construction is objectionable, first, because the law cannot itself be called ixOpa (the designation of it as owa/u? rfc afjuaprlas, 1 Cor. xv. 56, is not analogous) ; and, secondly, because the position of cv rg or. auroi) would be inexplicable, coming, as it does on that supposition, between the two nouns in apposition, although it has no relation to either. Indeed, it may be added that Kardpyrjo'as is not a verb appropriate to c^^pav ; it does not properly mean to destroy, but "to make of none effect," "to deprive of power" ; of the faith of God, Rom. iiL 3 ; of the law, Rom. iii. 31 ; the promise, iv. 14 ; persons from the law, viL 2, 6. It is, indeed, used of things coming to an end, as knowledge and prophecy, but coming to an end by being superseded. The second construction mentioned above seems to have the advantage of these two, although it must be admitted that it is not without difficulty. For the enmity was not the wall of partition. It was not the law only, although that was the ultimate cause, but the separation, religious, moral, and social, which forbade fellowship between Jew and Gentile. This partition was broken down by the annulling of the law. V. Soden has proposed a view of the passage which, if admissible, would meet the difficulties. It is that t^v c;(0pav is the beginning of the participial clause, which, having been interrupted by the statement of the process by which the effect was produced, If the text is taken up again in ver. 16, where l\6pav is repeated. had run thus, rrjy l\9paVy rbv vofxov twv cvt. cv Soy. tcarapyrj<ra^9 d7rcKTctvc, there would have been nothing harsh in the order of the words. As it is, the parenthesis is enlarged, as in the manner of this Epistle, ii. 1 and 4, 11 and 12, iii. 1 and 12, and the interrupted thought
is
resumed
in
ver.
16.
jcarapyipra?, diroKrciva?, in their relation to
The two participles, one another, correspond
exactly with the two in ver. 14. Soden connects cv rfj v. avrov with the following clause. The parenthetic digressions, however,
with which Soden compares this, are not quite parallel. In each of them, while the train of thought is interrupted, it is easy to account for the interruption by the influence of some particular word ; they are, in fact, instances of what Paley well calls St Paul's habit of "going off at a word." Thus in ii. 1 he goes off at a/iapTtai5, cv afc; in ii. ii at 1&vt\ cv ouptci; in iiL I at xnrkp v/uuv twv JS0vwv
II. 15]
63
The verbal connexion is in each instance easy. But here there is no similar connexion between the words which precede the digression and rov vd/*ov, k.t.X. The ix&p* is obviously that of Jews and Gentiles. This naturally loomed much larger in the apostle's eyes than it does in ours, or than it did in those of Chrysostom and his successors. With us as with them, the more pressing thought is of the enmity of So Oecumenius: jic6roixpv both Jew and Gentile to God. if>paypov <f>7)<ri rr)v l^Bpav rrjv wpfe coY, rjfiaxv re xal 'Iou&uW, 17ns Ik
And so Chrysostom interprets rrjv tyOpav iv rjj aapKi as being the /kco-otoiyovt <j> koivov cZyai &id<f>paypa diro kov oWctxtgw VH^h rejecting the interpretation which makes the law the typ*. But even though r) Ixvpa is not -6 v6juk9 it is the annulling of the law that removes the exfyxz, and the law is Moreover, characterised in terms which exclude the natural law. the reconciling of both to God is stated as a further object of the removal of the enmity and the creating of both into one new man. rov vtpov r&v Irrok&v cV fefypocni' Kardpyr\<ra^ rov v. twf hrr. iv b\ belong together; "the law of commandments expressed in decrees." The law consisted of tvroXai, and the definite form in which these were expressed was that of Soy/iaro, authoritative M decrees (" legem imperiosam, Erasm.). This connexion does not be repeated after cvtoA&v. For we might require the article to with propriety say brroXrjv SiSoVcu iv S6yjmri9 and therefore IvroXr) lv 8. may form a single conception. So Winer in his later editions. Compare rov vp.G>v (yj\ov vVcp c/uw, 2 Cor. viL 7. In fact, rSxv ivr. twv iv 8. would denote the ivroXai as a particular class, " commandments, even those expressed in decrees." A6y/&a in classical Greek means, first, an opinion or resolution. In the plural it is used of the "placita philosophorum," whence the use of the word in Christian writers in the sense of " dogma." But it also means a decree (Xen. Demosth. Plato), and this is the meaning which alone it has in the N.T. We have i(r}\$ Sovfux rrapa KaUrapos, Luke iL 1 ; Boyjuara KatVapof, Acts xvii. 7 ; to & KtKpipiva vwo twv diro<rr., ib. xvi 4. The word occurs also in Lachmann's text, Heb. xi. 23, & rov /WiAcW The remaining passages are the present and Col. iL 14. Chrysostom does not seem to have contemplated this meaning. He suggests that what is meant is either faith, 807/ia avrrjv koA&v, for by faith alone He saved us, or the precept rrjv irapayytXiav, as Christ said, A'yai vfiiv. *vw He is followed by Theophylact, Theodoret (ooypuara rrjv cvayyeAuoyv SioWftaAtaK fc<A.c<rcv), and Oecumenius. Theodore Mops, also connects the word with Karapyrjo-as, but interprets differently, understanding Soy/mra of the facts and hopes of the Gospel, " b\a r>v i&W Boypjirvv* tva cur-p, rrp dvcurrao'cais, rfj* AÔapatas, rrjs AOavao-tas' ooy/tara *aAc<ra? ravra fo
t>v rjfJLTpo)v TrapairrujfidTtay,
&
64
[IL 15
Divine grace working in us so that we do not need commandments and precepts." This interpretation, as well as Chrysostom's, would clearly require rots 8dy/fcaonv avrov or the like. Against Chrysostom's view, indeed, it is decisive that it was not by doctrines or precepts that Christ annulled the law. Theodore's view avoids this error, but gives Soypa an impossible sense. Of course, when once these commentators connected cv. 8. with the following, taking cv as instrumental, they were driven to
Iv Trpdyfiaaw 6Vto, the
some such
interpretation.
Harless also connects cv 8. with Kardpytjaa^ thinking that the absence of the article forbids the connexion with cWoAoiv. But his interpretation is that Christ annulled the law only in respect of Soyfiaray comparing Cic. Phil. L 7, " In maximis vero rebus, id est legibus, acta Caesaris dissolvi ferendum non puto," and such phrases
as cV
T77 irurri <2>vci'8urc (Arrian, Exp. iiL 30 ; Bemhardy, p. 2 1 2). St Paul has already indicated by tQv cvt. that he is not speaking of the law so far as it belonged to the covenants of promise, and now, to avoid all misconception, he adds cV 8oy/xao-i. Olshausen
follows Harless, who had, indeed, been preceded in this interpretation by Crellius. But this would require the article before 8oy-
Moreover, while it is true that the law as otcio, t<3v /icAAoVor as irai8aywyos cfe Xpiorov was not annulled, it was superseded. Such a limitation of the statement as to the abolition of the law would be out of place here, and would require more explicit statement, since it is not elsewhere referred to. The Mosaic law as such, not merely in certain aspects of it, has come to an end in Christ. He is the "end of the law," Rom. x. 4. Faith having come, we are no longer viro irai8ay<oyov (Gal. iii. 25). If cv 8. be connected with Kardpyrja-a^ then, considering the absence of the article, the only grammatical interpretation seems to be Hofmann's, viz. that Christ deprived the O.T. law of validity, He compares by putting an end to all precepts, "Satzungen." the construction in 1 Cor. iL 7, AoAov/acv crcxftiav 0cov cv /ivonppup, But surely the N.T. coni.e. XaAouvrc? crtx^tav XaXovfuy fLvcm/jpiov. tains many specific precepts which may be properly called 8oy/*ara. Comp. also tov vo/tov rov Xpiorov, Gal. vi. 2 ; cvvo/ao? Xpiorov, 1 Cor. ix. 21 ; and the parallel to the present passage in Col. ii. 14. As Meyer observes, the 8oy/tara of Christianity are the true Aci fl-apoVra Soy/tara, Plato, Theaet p. i<;8 D. Had the intention been what Hofmann supposes, St. Paul would doubtless have added some qualification, such as cv 8077100-1 oovAeta?. vo/mk here is not to be limited to the ceremonial law ; there is nothing in the connexion to show such a limitation, which, on the contrary, would make the statement very weak. No reader would fail to see that, as Theodoret says, ovk dvcIXc to ov /iotxvo-i5, k.t.X. The moral law retains its obligation, not, however, because the
fiatrw.
t<*v
II.
16]
6$
Jewish law is only partially annulled, but because its obligation was independent of the law and universal (Rom. ii. 14). If a Mohammedan becomes a Christian, we do not say that the Koran retains its obligation for him in its moral part, although he still acknowledges the obligation of many moral precepts contained in it The Christian now fulfils the moral law, not because of external precepts, but because conformity with it is the natural fruit of the Spirit Hence the contrast between the expressions, "works of the law," "fruits of the Spirit" Iva rods 8uo KTtoj] iv ai>T$ cl Ira Kaipor (LvBpwror. The neuter was used in ver. 14 to express the general characteristics of die two classes ; but here, where the Jews and Gentiles are conceived as concrete persons, the masculine was necessary. k<uv6v is necessary because the one is neither Jew nor Greek* Both have put off their former religious condition, and have received the same new nature. Chrysostom says 6paa ov\t rov *EAAiâ
:
rovrov kokivov cfc iripav icarcurrairtv ijKomK. ov\ Iva tovtov mpov ipyduTjrat rbv vopov Kanqpyryr^ aXX Iva tow Svo ktIvt). tc.T.k. On icT^ctv, cf. ver. io. It is specially appropriate here with koivo? av$. ovk c&rc, McrajSoAp, ha Sdfg to Ivtpyh rov yevo/ievou, says Chrysostom. Iv avrv. Rec. has lavr<3, with K L and most cursives, Chrys. Jerome, avroi is the reading of K B P, 1 7. Lachmann, Tischendorf, and Tregelles write avr<, but Westcott and Hort avrw. The sense here is certainly reflexive.
ycvo/icvov lov&uoi',
teal
aXXa
DGK A
Not 6V lavrov, as Chrys., but, Christ is Himand ground of the unity; "ne alibi quam in Christo unitatem quaerant," Calv. Cf. GaL iiL 28, mures v/icis cfc ion cV Xpurrio Irf<rov. Chrysostom, indeed, gives another interself the principle
%
" In Himself."
" Fusing it were only a development of the former. both this and that, he produced one, an admirable one, Himself having first become this ; which is a greater thing than the former creation. For this is the meaning of lv lavnp, Himself first affording the type and pattern." Oecumenius states the two interpretations as alternatives, explaining the first as ov oY byyDuav fj SXkiov Tivtov 8wa/xcW. 19 iroiVK tipriW present participle, " making peace, *.<?. so that by this new creation He makes (not "made") peace. The words explain a$r& iariv 17 tlprjvrj yuwv of ver. 1 4. The peace is, from the context, that between Jews and Gentiles ; but as the basis of that is peace with God, the latter thought underlies the former, and
pretation, as if
the apostle now turns. 16. xai diroKOTaWrfij). The c<u is not the mere copula, but indicates a logical sequence, "and consequently reconcile both,
to
it
now one body, to God by the Cross, having previously existing between them." S
on
it
slain the
enmity
66

dfttMcaraAXaotrcty is
[XL 17
It
found only here and CoL L 20.
seems
to be only an intensified form of the usual Greek word aAA<Wcu\ A*t> in composition frequently has this intensive meaning; < ianMxwdai, &roKapa&oKtv, to await patiently ; SO din>0appcu', cwroSavfiAtw, faroOtacrOai, etc. In a few instances, indeed, it seems to be equivalent to re- and to mean " again," as in diro8l8a>/u, chroAa/i/frEw, dwoKaOlonjfu, avoKaropOou. In the first two of these the idea is rather to give or take what belongs of right to the receiver, Here it is the idea of remotion from, as diro& x<ipLv} xnr6crxcriv. that explains the meaning of the verb. In the other two examples also this local idea is involved In any case, as this use of diro- is much less common than the intensive use, we are not justified in assuming it in a compound that does not elsewhere occur. i* iri fftijum is interpreted by Chrysostom as referring to the human body of Christ So Bengel : "in uno corpore cruci affixo." But in that case we should expect " His body." Nor is it easy to see why that should be designated lv <tu>/ao. The order of the words indicates the correct interpretation, "both now united in one body. ' The tv <ra>fta is the cfc koivo? avOpwros. So most commentators. It is not the Church, for it is only as reconciled that Jews and Greeks belong to the Church. But when reconciled they become the body of Christ, and so, the Church. 8t& tow oTaupou is joined by Soden with the following avnS being read for afap (so G, Vulg. and some Latin codices with The connexion with the two notions, aVoother authorities). Knhas and tyOpa, gives it a subtle point. " By His death He was slain; by death on the Cross, in which the i\0pa showed itself, have a parallel in CoL L 20, He has overcome the typ*." only that there, instead of the negative clVoktciWv ttjv L, we have the positive uprjvoirouLv ; also in connexion with 81a tov crravpou. ang, then, as in 15^, echoes with emphasis the fundamental thought : " He Himself is our peace." If we read lv avro, it could not be referred to ow/ia, because this <r. was just mentioned as the medium of reconciliation to God, whereas here it is the enmity between Jews and Gentiles that is in question. 17. ital cXtor cfoiyycXuraTo *ipj\vr)v. "And He came and preached good tidings of peace." The preceding verses showed how Christ secured peace; this, how He proclaimed it This, therefore, is posterior, and hence cannot refer to His life on earth, as Harless, following Chrysostom, understands it Bengel interprets the "coming and preaching," as that of Christ personally after the resurrection, " veniens a morte, profectione ad inferos, resurrectione victor laetus ipse ultro nuntiavit " But it is much better to understand the words of Christ preaching by His Spirit in the apostles and other messengers of His. Not that cviryy. means "caused to be preached"
1
We
IL
18]
67
what is thus done by Christ's Spirit is properly said to be done by Him ; nor is iXOw superfluous, but, on the contrary, important as expressing the spiritual coming
(as Harless objects), for
John xiv. 18, ^pxfiaL VP* */"** and in Acts xxvi 23, (Xpurros) vpwro* i( avaoTaatw vtxpSnr ^cfc /UAAci KarayycWtty r<p re Xfluj) ical rots 20vco%. A|uv TOi fJMucpdK Kal tiprf\vr\v Toi cyytfc. The second tlpfjvrfv has preponderant authority in its favour, 17, Vulg. L, most cursives, Syr. and other versions except Syr. Contra, The repetition is highly emphatic The datives depend on cviryycXto-aro. roU (uucpav comes first, because it is these that are addressed, and are chiefly in view in the whole passage. This also agrees with the view that it is not Christ's personal preaching that is intended, since that would have required rots fyyfc to come first The repetition of tlpyrqv excludes the interpretation of rots fyyu? as in apposition with vfuv, and so = the Jewish Christians in Ephesus. 18. $n 81* afrod ?xflCK tV irfxxraywyV ol dp+orcpoi iv rWftan irp&s T&r iraWpa. " For through Him we both have our access (or introduction) in one Spirit unto the Father." Proof of what precedes. The emphasis, therefore, is not on &* avrov, but on ot apmfk. iy ivl Uv. Since both have their wpotr. in one Spirit to the Father, it follows that the same good tidings of peace have been brought to both by Him. ort is "for," not "that," as if the verse contained the substance of the passage which has been already expressed in lprjvrj. And it is not the common access as such that is in question, but the peace therein assured (between Jews and Gentiles). Compare Rom. V. 2, "fit* 08 jccu Trjv irpocraywyrjv fyo/icv.
referred to in
ABDGP,
{crx^Ka/icv
trp.
cfe ti/v
X-Plv fdvTiyv Iv
tJ
ttmrjicaficv.
There, the
into the present condition, and accordingly the perfect is suitable; here, it is the vp. to the Father, which is a present
is
privilege.
Upoaaywyrj in classical writers is usually transitive, but is also found fairly frequently in an intransitive sense. The word is understood transitively here by Ellicott, Eadie, Meyer, after Chrysostom, ovk etirev irpocoSov aXXa irpoaayuryyv, av yap d^' lavrwv irpooÂlo/tcv, &XX xnr avrov vpoa^\$rffitv ; cf. 1 Pet iiL 18, Iva rn*Jax vpocayayQ tc3 0c<3, and it is supposed that there may be an allusion to the npoaaywyafc at Oriental courts. Such an allusion would not be in harmony with the context The
cv xvcvfuxn is decidedly against the supposition that the apostle Apart from this, the transitive intended this ceremonial figure. sense is not suitable in iii. 12, where the word is used absolutely, and here also the intransitive agrees better with ^xfLV> especially as the tense is present vpoaayurfq is something we possess.
68
t^f
irpocr.
[IL 10
hu Uvevftan
M Our access." is understood by Anselm (and some moderns)

spirit (oftoOvna&ov), against
Spirit,
the clear reference to oY ovtov, lv h>\ II. , irpos rov Ilarcpa. 19. apa oZv ouk^ti tor* J^wi ical irdpoiKoi. "So then ye are no more strangers and sojourners." apa o$V, a favourite combination with St Paul, is not found in classical writers except in the interrogative form, op* ovV. cvoi *al wdpoucoi, equivalent to din/AAoTpivfUvoi, ver. 12. fros is "foreigner" in general; irdpoucos, a foreigner dwelling in a state, and not having rights of citizenship. In classical Greek, indeed, it seems to be found only in the sense of neighbour. Rost and Palm name the Pandects (without In the reference) as having the word in the sense " inquilinus." Sept it occurs eleven times as the rendering of "13, which is usually
Father, Son,
of the
human
and
rendered wpooTjAvros. Numbers. Ten times
None
it
of these instances are in Leviticus or occurs as the rendering of acnn, " a foreign
sojourner." Of this it is the usual rendering. The verb irapouccw occurs in Philo with the corresponding verbal meaning ; see on Luke xxiv. 18. The noun seems to be equivalent to /meroucos, which the Sept have only once (Jer. xx. 3). In 1 Pet ii. 1 1 it is used of Christians in the world, and so irapoucta, ib. L 17. The meaning " proselyte " (Anselm, Whitby) is clearly excluded by the context, w. to 13; the other sense is pressed thus by Estius: "accolas fuisse dicit Gentiles quatenus multi ex illis morabantur inter Judaeos . . . non tamen iisdem legibus aut moribus aut religione utentes." But such a reference to local settlement would be too trivial, and quite out of place in writing to Ephesians. Nor had the Gentiles in a figurative sense been The word is simply sojourners in the commonwealth of Israel. used as contrasted with ttoAltcu. Bengel, followed by Harless, Eadie, <*/., supposed irapoinoi here to be specially opposed to oucciot, and $voi to (Tu/AiroAtrai, the metaphors being respectively from the house and the State, otv/ait., says Harless, is sufficient to show in what sense $evos is used, so that irapouco? is not required as a nearer definition. Accordingly, he interprets the word here by Lev. xxii. io, where the irap. of the priest is mentioned, *.*. " the guest in the priest's house," and trunks there may be even an allusion to that passage where the wdpotKos of the priest is not allowed to eat of the holy things, but the ofccoycvcis avrov are permitted. But this passage is quite insufficient to establish such an otherwise unknown sense of the Hebrew, and still less of the Greek word. The irdpoucos of the priest is simply the ir. who Nor would the figure be suitable, for the dwells in his house. Gentiles could not be called guests in the house of God. "But dXXd con ouj&voXiTVU tuv dyioik xat ouccioi tou 6cou.
H.
flO]

&rrc
is
69
saints, and of the household of God." added on preponderant authority. It gives greater independence to the clause, an independence befitting
ye are fellow-citizens of the
The second
its
importance.
Cf.
Rom.
viiL 15.
Xv/iroKtrrp is condemned by Phrynichus, and said by grammarian? to be a word of later Greek (Josephus, Aelian). It seems strange that they overlooked its occurrence in Euripides [IferacL 826), now noted in the Lexicons. (In Aesch. Sept. c, TheL 601, the true reading is {up roXlrats.)
t&v dyiMK. The clear reference to the woAiTeia of Israel shows decisively that the aytoi are those who constitute the people of
God. Such formerly had been the Jews, but now are all Christians. These are now the Israel of God, Gal. vi. 16, the true seed of Abraham, id. UL 7, 16 Rom. iv. 16.
;
The
ayioi, then, are
not the Jews, nor specially the patriarchs or

rfinr
Old Testament
Chrysostom
saints,
wtpl 'A/fyxia/ia *ai Miovoijv
teal
'HAiav, as
nor the angels, as some other commentators. Nor, again, does the word mean "holy men of all times and places." The word does not refer to personal holiness, but to membership of the spiritual commonwealth to which Jewish and
says,
Hence in ch. L 1 the apostle Gentile Christians alike belong. addresses his readers as aytot. oiKcioi tou 9cou, " belonging to the ot#cos or household of God," the theocracy regarded as a family ; cf. 1 Tim. iii. 15, " to conduct thyself iv ouctp cov, rjrts iarlv cV/cAr/crta eov <uiros " ; Heb. X. 20 ; In Gal. vL 10 we have the adjective as here, wpos I Pet iv. 17. tovs oiKcuw? tiJs itiotco)?, "those that are of the household of But as ouceios was common with such words as ^tAoo-o^t'a?, faith." ycuypcu^tas, etc, the reference to an oIkos cannot be pressed there. Harless, while supposing the word to be specially contrasted with irdpoucoiy remarks that the house is itself nothing but the community of the faithful, they being themselves the stones of which is built the house in which God dwells. They are oucctoi as
iiroiKoSofjLrjOivTts.
But
this
would be to confound two
figures
of ot*o?. It is, however, safe to say that the idea of owcos in one sense suggested to the apostle This is quite in accordance with St Paul's the kindred figure. mobility of thought The aorist refers to the time when they 20. cTroiKo&ofu)0&Tcs. became Christians. The further building of which they were the The compound verb does subjects is referred to in ver. 22. not stand merely for the simple, but expresses " superaedificatL ,,
different senses
founded on two
Comp. CoL ii. 7 and 1 Cor. iii. 10. As regards the use of the dative case, ri tw 0c/a., it is easy to see why the accusative is not used, as that would suggest the idea of motion towards ; cf. It is less easy to give a reason for 1 Cor. iii. 12, Rom. xv. 20. the preference of the dative to the genitive. It can hardly be
70
flL
flO
maintained that the genitive expresses separable superposition (Ellicott), for in Luke iv. 29 we have the genitive used of the What building of a city on a hill, ty' ov r) irdAtc avruiv qUo^d/up-a. that passage suggests is that eVi with the genitive expresses locality cf. Matt X. 27, lirl tuv Soifidrtov xxi. 19, hrl t. o8ov ; xxiv. 30, ipx6fivov hrl t. vcfaXwv ; hence it is used loosely of proximity, like our " on the river," hrl t. 6aXd<r<n^t either " on the sea " or " on
;
is similarly used, lirl St/to/iopi But, in general, the dative seems to imply more close and exact superposition. twk AiroorrfXtii' xal vpo+y)iw. The genitive has been understood in four ways : first, as the genitive of possession, " the foundation on which the apostles and prophets have built " ; secondly, as the genitive auctoris, " the foundation they laid " ; thirdly, as genitive of apposition, " the foundation which consists of the apostles and prophets "; fourthly, "the foundation on which they themselves have been built" The first view is adopted by Anselm and Beza, Beza's paraphrase is, "Supra Christum qui est apostolicae et propheticae structurae fundamentum." But this interpretation mixes up the Ic/xcXio? and the dicpoywv. Christ here is spoken of as the cornerstone, not the foundation. The same objection applies to the fourth view (Bucer, Alford). The second view is very generally adopted, and is supported bv reference to 1 Cor. iii. 10. In " Testimonium apostolorum et prophetarum Bengel's words
the seashore."
Yet the dative
(Herod,
vii.
75).
substructum est fidei credentium omnium." Eadie interprets the foundation as ctpip^, not so much Christ in person as Christ "our peace"; others more generally of the doctrine preached by
and prophets. But nowhere is the gospel or any doctrine called the foundation of the Church. Moreover, it would be rather incongruous to assume as the foundation the system of teaching about Christ, and as the corner-stone, Christ's person. If, in order to preserve
the apostles
the congruity of the figure, we identify "Christ preached " with " the preaching about Christ," we identify the corner-stone with the foundation. Moreover, the building consists of persons. In 10 the figure is different ; the building there is of 1 Cor. iii. doctrine, and naturally the foundation is doctrinal, " Christ," i.e. teaching about Christ Still further, if this view be adopted, the point that is brought out is an incidental one, quite unessential to the connexion. The important point was that the Gentiles were now along with Jewish believers members of one and the same theocracy, or, adopting the apostle's figure, were stones in the same This would by no means be expressed by building as the aytoi saying that they were built on a foundation laid by the apostles and prophets.
n. 20]
Hence
the interpretation of Chrysostom, Oecumenius, etc, is and prophets are themselves the It is true that elsewhere, with the exception of Rev. foundation. xxL 14, Christ is the foundation, not the apostles ; but here Christ is the corner-stone, and the passage in Rev., although not precisely The fact that the parallel, quite justifies our interpretation here. words there are taken from a vision is surely no objection to this. What seems a graver objection is that Christ seems thus to be named only as " primus inter pares." The answer to this is that by Orientals the corner-stone was reckoned of greater importance than the foundation, and as connecting and concentrating on Hence the expression in Isa. itself the weight of the building. xxviiL 16, alluded to here, and 2 Pet ii. 6 ; cf. Ps. cxviiL 22 ; Acts iv. Matt xxi. 42. Amongst recent commentators, Soden and Macpherson have adopted this view. The latter further defends the reference to the apostles as the foundation by 2 Tim. ii. 19, "The firm foundation of God standeth," "where undoubtedly the true elect of God are intended, who resist all temptations to unfaithfulness." He adds, " In the building up a special rank is given to those who
preferable, viz. that the apostles
n;
have been by immediate Divine calling and inspiration His witnesses unto all besides. They, in fellowship with Christ, as formare called the foundation." aKpoywiaaiou afrrou Xpurroo 'Itjoou. Showing, as Chrysostom says, that it is Christ that holds the whole together ; for the corner-stone holds together both the walls and the founda" Participium oktos initio commatis hujus, valde demonstrat tions. dVcpoy. (XlOov understood, which is in praesenti tempore," Bengel. added in D* G). The figure of the corner-stone as uniting the two walls is pressed by Theodoret as referring to the union of Jews and Gentiles ; and many expositors have followed him. But this is not only to press the figure unduly, it is also unsuitable. For the point is that Jews and Gentiles now indifferently are built into the one building, not as if the Jews were one wall and the Gentiles another. avrov is referred to tfc/icAto* by Bengel, Soden, Macpherson. Bengel urges the absence of the article before Xpurrov 'Iiprov. But, in fact, the article would imply the previous mention of Christ Jesus, and the sense would be " He Himself, even Christ Jesus"; see Fritzsche on Matt iii. 4, where avro? 82 6 *Iwawr^ and avros *Ia)aw77s (as in D) are equally possible. Similarly John iv. 44, where the best texts have avros 'Iôw ; but the article (as Also Luke xx. 42, avro? inserted in R, 69, aL) is admissible. AavtS. It is better to connect avrov with Xp. 'I., since it is more to the purpose that Christ should be called the corner-stone of the building than of the foundation ; and in this connexion the
ing the
first layer,
Sktos
J2
[IL 21
emphatic pronoun is by no means superfluous, but fittingly distinguishes Christ from the apostles and prophets. Who are these apostles and prophets? According to Chrysostom they are the Old Testament prophets. The absence of the article before irpo^rp-thv is against this, though not decisive, since the O.T. prophets and the apostles might possibly be regarded as constituting one class, though this would hardly be natural. The order of the words is also against it, and is not satisfactorily accounted for by the superior dignity of the apostles as having seen and heard Christ (Estius). Again, we have the analogy of iii. 5 and iv. 1 1, in both of which passages apostles and prophets are named together, and the prophets are New Testament prophets.
also disprove the suggestion that the apostles themselves are here called prophets. The absence of the article before wpoîpw is natural, since the apostles and prophets formed one class as teachers of the Church. The objection, that the prophets themselves were built on the foundation of the apostles (in whichever sense we take the genitive), loses all force when we consider, first, the high value which St. Paul sets on the gift of prophesying (i Cor. xiv. i ff.) ; and, secondly, that with him "apostles" does not mean the Twelve only (see hereafter on Nor does there appear any reason here why the apostles iv. n). should be called by this additional title. 2L. fr , ue. iv Xp. 'fyrov, not cucpoyavuuip, as Theophylact, Beza, aL v&o-a oUo8ofi^. Rec iraxra rj o&t
These passages
The
reading
is difficult
vBff* oUodoni,
K*
BDGKL ACP,
and moat
others,
Guys. (Commtnt.\
Theodoret.
xcUra $ oUoSofit, Ann., Chxys. (text ; but this is probably a copyist's error or correction). Thus the balance of documentary evidence is strongly against the insertion of the article. Before deciding in favour of this reading, we must consider the comparative likelihood of the article being either omitted or inserted in error. Reiche, for instance, thinks it probable that copyists either neglected the article from lack of exact knowledge of qui articulo hie carent, saepe observatur," or Greek, "quod in codicibus, misinterpreted the words of the apostle as referring to individual churches, or (as Chrysostom) to the various parts of each edifice (Comment. Crit. in thinks 4 might more easily be omitted because of the homoeobe.). teleuton oUcodopfa and because in iv. 12, 16 the same word is without the Bat this is not a case of possible omission from homoeoteleuton ; if article. the scribe's eye leaped from 17 to 17, ouco&ofiij would be the word omitted. In fact, the accidental Racism would be a more plausible explanation.
He
it is grammatically required is extremely even in single MSS. Even where homoeoteleuton or other sources of parablepsy might have been expected to cause omission in one or two MSS., we find no variation, as in Matt. xxv. 7, raccu oi, or 6 before words beginning with o, as rait 6 fcXor, Matt xiii. 2 ; Luke vi. XQ. Intentional variation in the addition or omission of the article is pretty frequent, especially with such words as Otto, Xpurrdt, rUmi. That the variation is intentional appears
omission of the article in cases where
rare,
IL
21]
73
further
from the grouping of the MSS. on each side, those to which the preference is given by recent critics being usually on the side of omission Nor does any reason appear for the (not Rom. zv. 14 or Col. iii. 16). intentional omission of the article in these cases. Where the article was (Epp.), it is generally supplied by omitted by the first scribe of g and
instance of (probably) erroneous omission is in Eph. vi. 16, rd before TervfxajjUra (om. B D* G). On the other hand, a striking example of the article (probably) added erroneously after ras occurs Rom. xv. 14, wdfftfs ttji yruxrivi (g B P, but om. C and most). In T A and about twenty others, Matt. iii. 5, raura y 'lovtala, if is om. by In the present case, intentional It is unnecessary before the proper name. addition is much more likely than intentional omission, since with the article the meaning is obvious, and without it there is a difficulty. Such a consideration as Reiche suggests does not seem sufficiently obtrusive to influence the scribes.
corrector.
A remarkable
A D
The word
o&oSo/xiJ belongs to later Greek,

is
It Phrynichus. the former see

xvii.
used both for Chron. xxix.
oucoSofn/fui
1
;
and is condemned by and 01*00*0/470-1?. For
for the latter, Ezek. xvL 61,
where it represents the Hebrew infinitive. In the N.T. it seems to have a sort of intermediate sense, like the English "building." Thus in 1 Cor. iii 9, "ye are God's husbandry (ycwpyiov), ye are God's building (outooofiij)," the word is not
17,
equivalent either to oiKooofwy/ia or to otxoSo/xi/o-ts. As yewpyiov there is that which is cultivated by God, so out. is that which is builded up by God. In Matt. xxiv. 1 and Mark xiiL 1, 2, it is used of the buildings of the temple: trorairol X.1O01 koI worairal Here it does oiKO&Ofiai . . . /?Xcirctc Tavras ras /xcyaAa? oucooo/ufc. not appear to mean "edifices," for the temple could not properly be said to consist of several edifices. The separate kCOoi were not oUoSofiaiy but every combination of them might be called an ohc Just so we might say, " what carvings," " what outlines," or of a picture, " what harmonies. " The Vulgate has in Matt xxiv. 1 and Mk. xiii. 2, "aedificationes"; in Mk. xiii. 1, " structurae."
In 2 Cor. v. 1, "we have a building from God," the word is nearly equivalent to "structure," yet it is plain that oUoSoffpfia would not have been so
built"
It is "a house that God builds," not "has English words "building, construction, structure" The most common meaning of the all have a similar ambiguity. word in the N.T. is the figurative one, " edification " ; that sense it has in this Ep., iv. 12, 16. The meaning in iv. 29 is analogous. Now let us turn to the text ; and first, if the reading with the article is adopted, there is no obvious difficulty, "the whole building," that is, the whole organised body of believers. When we look closer, indeed, we find something strange in the expressions. It seems strange that the (rvvapfLo\oyovfxV7) is present. 1 bui'ding should be spoken of thus as in course of being named together. Still more unexpected is au. The whole The ambiguity of the English building is growing into a temple.
suitable.
The
74
[XL 21
" building " disguises this strangeness, which is apparent when we substitute " edifice." " The whole edifice is growing into a temple,"
The
words, " the whole building or edifice," express the conception of a thing completed. If the reading were well established, we might explain this as due to a want of precision in the metaphor but, as we have seen, this reading is not so well supported as the
other, to
which we now turn.
expositors, including Eadie, Ellicott (more doubtfully), Barry, Moule, Meyrick, not Findlay, Macpherson, nor the Revisers, hold that iraa-a oucoSofiy may be rendered as if it were iraou fj 01V,
Many
and they
iL 36,
refer especially to
*Icrparjk
:
Luke
iv.
13,
vavra
Treipacr/tov
:
Acts
was dhcos
vii.
22, iraUra
<ro<f>ia
Afyvjrr&Dv
Homer,
xxiv. 407, Trao-av aXrfttirjv. None of these passages bear out the assertion, irdvra irttpacrfwv is not " all the temptation," but " every temptation," as RV., t.e. " every form of temptation." See on Luke iv. 13. So in Acts viL 22, although the English version sufficiently expresses the sense, what is meant is not the totality of the wisdom of Egypt, but the wisdom in all its branches. In Horn. IL xxiv. 407, aye 81; fioi trao-av 6XrjOtrjv KaraA.coi', the meaning clearly is : " Come, tell me the exact truth, nothing but Similarly the truth." The article here would not be appropriate. in Josephus, Antiq. iv. 5. 1, irorafio? 81a irdxnjs Ipqfwv friwv is a river flowing through a country which is all desert otto* *l<rparjk in Acts iL 36 is an expression borrowed from the O.T., where it occurs with was in Jer. ix. 26, Ezek. xxxvL 10, xxxvii. 1 1, and is treated as a proper name, as it is without iris in xxxix. 12, 22, 23, etc. So, too, obcos Kvplov. So in classical writers The general rule is 707, for example, is treated as a proper name. that a word cannot be used with was without the article when the sense is " the whole," unless it is such that without iras it can be employed definitely, or does not require the article to give it somewhat similar rule holds good in English, definiteness. where we can say, not only "all England," but "all town," "all school," "all college," "all parliament"; but by no means "all house." It is, no doubt, immemorial use that has enabled such words to dispense with the article, when the thing meant, though can also say only one of many, is marked out by its familiarity. Nor does it appear that "all night, "all day," as the Greeks did. v. otic, would, to a reader of St Paul's time, be any more likely to suggest "the whole building" than would "all building" to an must therefore acquiesce in some such English reader. rendering as "every building," or "each several building," RV., modified, perhaps, as will be presently mentioned. But what is meant by "every building"? Hardly "every church " ; for to speak of the several local churches, or of the Jews and Gentiles as so many several buildings, would not be in accord-
1L
We
We
XL 22]
75
ance with the figure in ver. 20, or with St Paul's language elsewhere. Moreover, he has just used a forcible figure to express the unity of the whole Church, and it would be strange if he now weakened it by speaking of several buildings. The individual believer, again, is spoken of in 1 Cor. iii. 16 as vao >w; but there the figure is explained by the context, as founded on the conception of the indwelling of the Spirit. This is very different from calling The passages above referred to in each believer an 01*080^17. Matthew and Mark suggest that what is intended is "everything that from time to time is builded in," "every constituent element of the building." The English words "all the building " would admit of being understood in this way, but are ambiguous. The image is that of an extensive pile of buildings in process of construction at different points on a common plan. The several parts are adjusted to each other so as to preserve the unity of design. So Findlay, who remarks that an author of the second century, writing in the interests of Catholic unity, would scarcely have omitted the article. Hofmann compares inurqc jmb-eu?, CoL L 15, which he says does not mean "the whole creation," nor "every creature^" but "all that is created," as nwa cro^ta *<u ^ponpro in L 8 is "all that is wisdom"; irav O&rjim rov 0cov, Col. iv. 12, "all God's will," to which we may add iracra ypa<H* 2 Tim. iii. 16; w. avacrrpoQr}, 1 Pet i. 1 5. Soden's view is similar. Comp. iv. 16.
(nirappoXoyouplKV), "fitly joined together," present participle, because this harmonious framing together is a process still going on. The compound verb occurs only here and iv. 16/ The simple verb dp/JtoXoycw seems to be equally rare. The classical word is awapfwfa. None of these is found in the Sept ad(ci, "groweth," the present, as in the former word, indicating the perpetual growth. The verb is neither rare nor poetical, as is sometimes stated ; on the contrary, it is more frequent than av(dv*> in the best Attic prose (Thuc Xen. Plato), but the use of the active in an intransitive sense is later (Aristot Polyb. DiocL). It
occurs also in Col.
ii.
19.
" Unto a holy temple (or sanctuary) in the Lord." Kvptoc, according to the Pauline usage, must be Christ iv K. seems best connected with ayto?, "holy in the Lord"; to join it with ava alone would be a tautology. 22. cV J takes up the iv <L of ver. 21 ; cf. ch. i. 11 and 12. Kal fipcfe, "ye also"; cf. ver. 13. " Ephesios hortatur <niyoiKo8oiui<r0c, not imperative, as Calvin ut crescant in fide Christi magis et magis postquam in ea semel fuerunt fundati," but indicative, as is proved by w. 19, 20, in which the apostle describes what the readers are, not what they ought to be. Note the present tense, because the building is still going on; cf. 1 Pet ii. 5, " are being builded in together," i>. together with
cfe wAk &yiok iV Kupiw.
:
76
[m.
<rv/*iro\iTai. The irao-o before oi*. looks forward to this *<u vftcw crwowc., and this is a fitting conclusion to the paragraph which commenced with " ye are no more strangers and foreigners." Meyer and Ellicott understand the ow~ differently, viz. as referring to the putting together the single parts of the building; Meyer quoting Philo, De Proem, 20, p. 928 E
the others; <rwas in
Mang. iL p. 427), otKt'av ev owvKO&opirjpivTjv irai (rwqppo<rp.iv7jv. But the whole context favours the interpretation "you together with others," and there is no reason to give any other sense to the
(ed.
crw- in awapfioX.oyovp.ivrf, ciS KaroiKr\vf\pioy tou 6eou.
Karoucrfrrjpiov only in Rev. xviiL 2 in N.T., but freq. in the Sept " Into a habitation of God," the same which was expressed by voos ayio?, only further specifying the Harless, who reads wwa r) 01*., supessential nature of this vao*. poses KaroiK. here to be used of each individual Christian in whom God dwells, the whole forming a vaos aytos. Griesbach places iv <2 teal vfuU awouc in a parenthesis, which is awkward and unnecessary. It is interpreted by Chrysostom cV TTOojMm, "in the Spirit" spiritually, 0&C05 irvcv/xariKo?, and so TheophyL Oecurn. as Olshausen also thinks there is a glance at the vab? xiP<y7roiVT^ But there is no suggestion of this in the context ; and as the whole is so distinctly figurative, it would be worse than superfluous to add
Moreover, it does not appear that <V irvcv/xan could be used with a substantive as = spiritual, except so far as the
this definition.
substantive involves a verbal notion, as

TfJLV<rOai cv irr. 9 Sc'cr/tuos iv
irtpirop.ii iv
r. = to ircpt-
Xpiarw = 8c8c/i,cko9
iv Xp.
But iv here is not merely instrumental, as if = 81a. The Spirit not the means or instrument only, but the medium by virtue of which God dwells in the Church. The iv refers to the act of KaroiKrfo-is. He by or in His Spirit dwells in this temple. The article is not required, as irvtvfia is frequently treated as a proper name where no ambiguity is caused thereby. 1-7. This truth, that the Gentiles are fellow-heirs with the JewS) was hidden from former generations, but has now been revealed to the apostles and prophets ; and unworthy though I am, yet to me has been given the privilege of making it known, and of preaching
is
m.
Christ to the Gentiles.
L TOUTOU X^P lK iyfi* naCXos 6 ScVpios tou Xpiorou 'Itjoou flircp up&v twv IQv&v. (Tischendorf omits 'Iiyo-ov, with * D* G.) " For this reason, I Paul, the prisoner of Christ Jesus in behalf of you
"For this reason," "hujus rei gratia," Vulg., t\e., as Gentiles." Theodoret says, " Knowing well both what ye were and how ye were called and on what conditions, I pray God to establish you in
the faith."
etc.
Chrysostom supplies ci/u. I am the prisoner of Christ Jesus, So the Peshitto and many moderns, including Beza, Meyer
IH. 2]
PAUL THE APOSTLE OF THE GENTILES
fj
Macpherson, "in order that ye may be built up to the habitation God in this behoof, that your Christian development may advance to that goal." But this is to give too great prominence to the assertion of his imprisonment, as if it were a main point in the discourse, instead of being incidental Besides, we should expect in that case hiapMK without the article. St. Paul was not likely thus to designate himself as " the prisoner of Christ Jesus," even with the addition " for you Gentiles." The notoriety of the fact does not explain this. Moreover, this view makes tovtov x*P lv
of
vfuov rather tautologous. The analogy of ch. iv. i is in favour of taking 6 & in apposition with ya> IIavA.09. Calvin's "legatione fungor" is a rendering of irpcor/fcua), the reading of D (from vi. 20). Three cursives add Kcxavx^fuu. Origen {Catena) supposes a solecism ; that, in fact, what St Paul iyvtapura to pwrr. ought to have written was t. x*?- Jerome also, following Origen, declares that after diligent search he could not find the continuation of the sense. But tie true key was given by Theodore Mops., followed by Theodoret, viz. that w. 2-13 is a ravra wavra iv fi<na rc0uca>? ava\afifiavi top ircpt parenthesis. The apostle having described himirpoa-vxn^ Aoyov, Theodoret self as a prisoner for the Gentiles, is quite characteristically drawn off into a digression on the grace granted to him in connexion with this ministry to the Gentiles. Oecumenius regards the sentence as resumed in ver. 8 with the change of the nominative to the dative, a change not without parallels, as he observes, in Thucydides and lv would mean " for this Demosthenes. On that view tovtov
and vvkp
x-?
But then 6 Bio-puos would have no point, purpose," as in Tit L 5. and, besides, ver. 8 is closely connected with 6 and 7. It is much more satisfactory to assume, with Theodore and Theodoret, that the ver *4 sense is resumed with the same words, tovtov x*PiV> The supposition of a resumption in ch. iv. 1, adopted in the AV., rests apparently only on the repetition of 4 ScV/uos, and unnecessarily lengthens the parenthesis. "The prisoner of Christ Jesus," so he calls himself in 2 Tim. i. 8 and Philem. 9, and in this Ep. iv. 1, " prisoner in the Lord." He looks on his imprisonment, not merely as suffered in the service of the Lord, but as part of the lot assigned to him by Christ, so
that
he was
Christ's prisoner.
Somewhat
similarly in ch.
vi 20,
\nrtp ov irptcrfitvu) iv aAvcrct.
" In behalf of you Gentiles." Since it was his preaching the admission of the Gentiles that led to his persecution at the hands of the Jews and to his present imprisonment, Acts xxL 21,
free
28, xxii. 22.
" If, indeed, ye have heard of 2. tye ^kououti ity oUoKOfuaK. the dispensation." This seems decisive against the supposition that the Epistle was addressed to a Church which had been
78
[m. 2
personally instructed by the writer.
The utmost force that can be claimed for ctye is that, in Hermann's words, it is used "de re quae jure sumpta creditor," "if, as I take for granted," being less hypothetical than cfn-cp. According to Lightfoot on Gal iiL 4, this rule requires modification when applied to the N.T., where cfyc is
less directly affirmative
than
cftrcp.
cfyc is used in the N.T. of The former things that are certain, quoting iv. 21 and CoL i. 23. passage is in the same case with the present ; in the latter, hope only is expressed, not certainty. The only other places where tfyc occurs in the N.T. are Gal. iii. 4 and in the Received Text 2 Cor. v. 3 (cfrrcp, B D). It is found also in Rom. v. 6 in B. But allowing that the particle implies certainty as strongly as Hermann's rule asserts, it could not be used of a fact in the writer's own experience. preacher addressing a strange congregation might say "I am sure," or even "I know that you have been
Eadie says
it is
"undeniable" that
taught so and so," but no preacher addressing those whom he himself had taught would ordinarily express himself in this way. 1 It is said, indeed, that this argument proves too much, since " what was known of Paul in the Ephesian Church would practically be known of him throughout the missions of Asia " (Moule). But this is just the kind of case in which the particle may be properly used, viz. where the writer may be "practically" certain, but doubt is conceivable. Besides, the details which follow might be but imperfectly known to those who had not heard them from And again, would he, in writing to the St, Paul's own lips. Ephesians, refer them to what he has just now written, that they may appreciate his knowledge in the mystery of Christ? Had they not had much more full proof of this during his long ministry? Every other attempt to evade this conclusion is equally unsuccessful. Thus rfKowrart has been rendered " intellexistis " (Anselm, " Grotius), a meaning which the verb can have only when " hearing
included; or, again, "hearing" the Epistle read (alluding to earlier passages in this Epistle) ; but cf. avayiiwKOKTcs, ver. 4. Calvin says: "Credibile est, quum ageret Ephesi, eum tacuisse de his Ellicott reasons in a circle, "There could be no real rebus." doubt; 'neque enim ignorare quod hie dicitur poterant Ephesii quibus Paulus ipse evangelium plusquam biennio praedicaverat,' He Estius. . . . No argument, then, can be fairly deduced," etc. supposes the apostle to convey the hope that his words had not Similarly Eadie, Alford, Macpherson, Meyer, been forgotten. But the words are not (contra, W. Schmidt in last ed. of Meyer). " if ye remember," or " if ye know " ; but " if ye have heard " ; and
is
that, if written to the

1
iii.
Ephesians, would be "if I told you."
compare Sanday and Headlam, Comm, on Komantm 30, with the quotation there from Monro's Homeric Grammar*
cfyf
On
and
eftrep
IH. 8]
JQ
Tty oiKOPoptai' ttjs x^P tT5 tou 6cov -ri}s Bo6ct<rrjs pot elf dp&$. dispensation of the grace of God, the grace given me to youward." As the explanation which follows is "that by revelation," etc., it is best to understand t. x<fy>wos as the genitive of the object, viz. the dispensation or plan or arrangement (namely, God's Chrysostom, arrangement) with respect to the grace," etc. followed by Oecum., takes the genitive as that of the subject. out. \ap. rrpr diroKaAw/av îpriV, on ov irapa &v0pia7rov fyaOcv, AW* ovtuk oMcoi/o/iiprcv 17 \apn wore /utot i$ ovpavov faroKaKvKfaOfjvai, Oec. But this does not agree so well with the following words, which define the x<*P'* V ioBtura fe ty<**. Alford, understanding the But genitive as objective, takes olx. as = "munus dispensandi." it is not easy to see in what sense St Paul could dispense the Many commentators suppose SoOturrj? to be grace given to him. attracted into the genitive by xdptros, either understanding that it is in and with the grace that the olx. is entrusted to him (for which reason the participle has the case of x-> - Soden), or taking r. olc r. \ap. as the gospel dispensation. But, while St Paul might speak of the gospel dispensation as entrusted to him (oUovofuav iren-Mrroyxcu, 1 Cor. ix. 17), he could hardly speak of it as "given to him." Nor does this interpretation agree with the circumstance that the following words take the form of an explanation. The explanation of oi*., as the apostolic office or stewardship, is also not consistent with the explanation, in which it is the act of God that is spoken of, not any conduct of the apostle. It is tempting to suppose, with some expositors, that die writer, in using the word oucovo/uo, has in his mind the building just referred to. But although oLcos might .suggest the idea of an oucovofiosj oUoSofirj and oucrjTrfpiov do not ; and the figurative use of oUovofua was so common, that if the apostle had intended such
11
The
an
allusion,
he would have made
it
more
distinct
8. oti KaiA dwoic<Xin|riK fywpurdi) pot to parnqpiOK.
"That
it
was by way of revelation that the mystery was made known to me.* Explanation of ver. 2 ; hence the emphasis is on jcar& dw., which is not really different from &V &voko\wj/ux Gal. L 12, In the latter passage, *ara could not have been used on account of *Iiprou Xpurrov following. tyvtopio-OT) is the reading of It ABCD*GP, Vulg. Boh. Ann., Chrys. The Rec has iyywpur^ with D C KL, Theoph. Oec. For to fivcrrrfpuw see on ch. L 9. Here, not the " mystery n of redemption in general is meant, but the particular "mystery" of
9
the inclusion of the heathen, for it is thus explained in ver. 6. koAws vpo^ypofa iv AXtyw. "As I have just written in brief." xpo- is local, not temporal (c GaL til 1, Trpotypafa), and the reference is to the present Epistle, not to an earlier one, as supposed
80
[III.
tq imorok'j} ; and 1 Pet V. 12, reference is doubtless to the whole preceding exposition about the Gentiles. iv 6Aty<p, equivalent to iv Pp*x&, used by Demosthenes. Theodoret, indeed, and some modems connect this with the ny>oin Trpovypaxj/a, as if it meant "paulo ante," which would be wpo oklyov. iv 6\~ in a temporal sense would mean, "in a short
V.
9,
&vaywwrKovTs. Comp. I Cor.

typaty*
81'
by Chrysostom, Calvin, a/., contrary to the present participle Theodoret and Theophylact have the right view.
eypaif/a iv
fotywv.
The
time " (Acts xxvi. 28). Wetstein correctly, " pauca tantum attigi possent" Oecumenius gives a peculiar turn, ovk typcuf/tv o<ra i\pijv aXX* &ra i\<utpoxjv vociv, as if the following y>os o were = " prout," which would make foayunhrKovm unmeaning. 4. vpfe 3 is, "according to which, or looking to which," namely, to what I have said. Comp. "wy>6s & lirpafrv," 2 Cor. v. 10; irpb* rrjv a\r}6c(av rov cvayy., GaL iL 14; irpos to Otkrjpua avrov, Luke xii. 47. But the usage is quite classical dâyiiâKOKTcsi present, because it is "while reading," or "as ye read." Koijaai. Where it is indifferent whether the aorist or present infinitive is used, the aorist is more frequent (Winer, 44. 7^, especially after such verbs as owa/uu, 0c'An>, eta Hort thinks this avay. refers to reading the O.T. prophecies, comparing Matt. xxiv. But there the passage "read" is distinctly specified, and 15. although in Mark xiil 14 Daniel is not named, he is quoted. " My understanding t9)k irvvtuLv pou iv r$ pwm\pi* toO Xpurrou. in the mystery of Christ" The article is not required before iv t<3 /1., because <rwivai a frequent expression (Josh. L 7; 2 Chron. xxxiv. 12). fiwrr. rov Xp. We have the same expression in Col. iv. 3, where it clearly means the doctrine of the free admission of the Gentiles (81* t teal &eSc/uu). It is the same here, as explained in ver. 6. Similarly, in Col. L 27 we have rov ft. tovtov o i<mv Xpioro? iv vfitv. That passage has been used (by Alford, Ellicott, Meyer) to prove that the genitive here is one of apposition or identity but it fails in this, since there it is not Xpurro?, but Xpurros iv vp2v9 that constitutes the ft. It is better, therefore, to understand " the
cum multa did
Ms
mystery (or doctrine) relating to the Christ n ; the genitive being

that of the object
Critics who question the genuineness of the Epistle regard this verse as the expression of a boastfulness not in accordance with the dignity of an apostle, and only a clumsy imitation of 2 Cor. xL 5, 6, where St. Paul is merely claiming for himself that in which his opponents claim to surpass him. But there is no self-laudation in this assertion of <rwcons (see, on the contrary, ver. 8) ; nor even
HI. 5]
8l
as high a claim to exceptional knowledge as is involved in Kara faroKakvtyiVy which it only serves to illustrate. Is it not quite natural that in writing to Churches where he was not personally
known, and where there were teachers whose teaching was of a

corrupt and paganising tendency (v. 11-14), *uid threatened to cause a schism between the Jewish and the Gentile members of the Church, the apostle, who was, in fact, combating these errors, and expounding the true nature of the privileges to which the Gentiles were admitted, should remind them in some such way that the subject was one on which he could speak with authority, and thus guard against objections which might possibly be urged by these unsound teachers ? From this point of view it will be seen that this indirect and delicate way of meeting possible opposition is thoroughly Pauline. On the other hand, a writer who merely assumed the name of Paul, especially one of such power as the writer of this Epistle, would hardly put into his mouth an expression of such seeming self-complacency, without any hint of opposition. Still less would such a writer forthwith add so striking an expression of self-depreciation as is contained in ver. 8. 5. S fr^pcus ycKeais ouk iyvwpiaih) tois utois tk d^pcSirwy. "Which in other ages was not made known to the sons of men." iv, which in the Received Text precedes cTcpot?, rests on slight authority, but it expresses the right construction of h-. yev. Meyer, in his earlier editions, adopted the view that the meaning was "to other generations," toi? vtoic, *.t.A., being epexegetical. (So also v. Soden.) But the usual interpretation is simpler, and corresponds better with the antithetical vw. For ycvca in this sense, cf. Acts xiv. 16, iv Tat? irapuxn/1 * 1 * 7-1 an<^ for the dative of time, ii. 12, crcpcu?, i.e. other than the present "The sons of men," an expression frequent in the O.T. and simply = " men." Comp. Mark iii. 28 (the only N.T. parallel) with Matt xii. 31. It is needless, therefore, to adopt Bengel's remark, " latissima appellatio, causam exprimens ignorantiae, ortum naturalem cui opponitur Spiritus." Bengel, indeed, thinks that the prophets are especially referred to, because Ezekiel, who writes largely of the temple, as St Paul does here, calls himself the son of man ; but this is peculiar to him. It seems equally erroneous to find in the words a marked contrast with " His holy apostles," namely, because these were w avdpwroi (2 Pet i. 21) (Ellicott). This is far-fetched. The apostles and prophets were not the less sons of men ; and we might, with as much reason, follow Jerome, who would exclude the O.T. patriarchs and prophets because they were "sons of God." <&S vvr AircicaXityOv) tois dyiois dirocrro'Xois afcou koI vpo^rotf ir nreujum. "As it has now been revealed to His holy apostles and prophets in the Spirit"
82
&s
[m.
is comparative, with such clearness as now. ovtw ibcpt/fo* ^Scurav oi iraXauol to /xucrr^piov, Theoph. ; " fuit illis hoc mysterium quasi procul et cum involucris ostensum," Beza. a7rKa\v<t>$r}y not now tyvaypCcrOrj, because the special manner in which the knowledge was given is to be brought out "His holy apostles." How can the writer, if himself an apostle, use such an expression ? Some critics answer unhesitatingly that it is incredible that an apostle should do so, and that the expression betrays the view which belonged to a later age. Baur thinks the dyiW an oversight. And the writer who was so unskilful as to be guilty of this palpable oversight, is so mindful of his assumed character that in the same breath he says, c/tol r<j> The difficulty seems to arise from the i\axurroTp<f iravrmv dyiW. use of the word "holy," and the corresponding words in other modern languages, to express the personal character of "holiness." But fyto? is used of any thing that is set apart for a sacred purpose. So we have "holy prophets," Luke L 70 ; Acts iiL 21. All Christians are by their calling dyiot, and St Paul frequently uses the word where he himself is included {e*g. 1 Cor. vL 2 and Col. L 26). When he calls all believers aytoi, what delicacy should prevent him from calling the apostles by the same word? clergyman is not expected to be prevented, by a feeling of delicacy, from speaking of his "reverend brethren," or a bishop of his "right reverend brethren." Lachmann and Tregelles place a comma after ayt'ot?, the following words being in apposition : " to the saints, His apostles and prophets," or rather " apostles and prophets of His." But such a separation of the adjective from the following substantive is harsh, although it must be admitted that it is suggested by the
<A)k
parallel in
difficulty seems to arise from the statethat the mystery of the free admission of the Gentiles had been revealed to " the apostles and prophets," viz. as a body. For this is precisely the special doctrine which St Paul seems elsewhere, and here in ver. 3, to claim as his own, and which, at least
CoL L 26. more considerable
ment
at
first,
was not accepted by the other apostles (Gal.
il).
In
ver.
recognised as the distinctive characteristic of St For this reason Reuss makes the suggestion Paul's apostleship. that the second half of ver. 5 is a gloss. In favour of this suggestion, it may also be observed that avrov has no expressed antecedent, unless, indeed, in opposition to most expositors, we In the parallel in Col. i. 26, roU aytow take it to be Xpiorov. avrov, the antecedent Oeov occurs just before. But the authority B, of the MSS. is too strong for this suggestion to be accepted place the indeed, omits dawroAois (with ps. Ambr.), while
8, also, this is
DG
word
after
avro&
HI. 6]
83
The difficulty, however, is met by the consideration that, notwithstanding the doubts which the other apostles at first entertained, they afterwards fully accepted the doctrine as taught by St Paul, Acts xv., Gal. ii. 7 ff., and that long before the present The "prophets" are manifestly Christian Epistle was written. hr irveuftart must be joined with the verb, not with vpoprophets, <^7tcu9, to which it would be a superfluous addition, or dyuu?, or the following rfvat. 6. cTkcu t& cOnf| <rvyKki\pov6iia ical oiWupa . . . (namely) " that the Gentiles are fellow-heirs (or joint possessors) and fellow-memEpexegetical ; stating, not the purpose, but bers of the body." the content of the ftwmqpiov. The " should be " of AV. is not grammatically tenable. crvyKXrjpovopxi, fellow-heirs, not with Christ,
as in Rom. viii. 17 (and Jerome here), for it is "in Christ," but with the believing Jews. The word <rvyic\.ripov6fjLos is found four times in the N.T. and once in Philo, but not elsewhere, owo-co/to, incorporated with them into the body of which Christ is the Head. The word is not found elsewhere (except in the Fathers), and is supposed to have been perhaps formed by St Paul. But as Aristotle has the compound owo-wfumwroiciv (De Mundo% iv. 30), it is more probable that the adjective was in use. kcu crupplTOxa ttjs CTrayycXCas iv Xpurr$ *It)<tou.
adrou after fa&ry., with al.\ but the absent from P 17, aL Xpurry of the Text Rec. rests on nearly the same MS. authority, with the addition of D; while Xpurrf B C P 1 7. lipoQ has the authority of K
The Received Text has

is
D^GKL,
word
KABCD*
A
"And
there
accumulation of epithets
joint-partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus." The is due to the importance of the matter
is no climax, for ot;/a/act. is not stronger than owo-upa. The former word is found outside this Epistle only in Josephus, but the verb avp^rixw occurs in Xen. and Plato. Jerome renders the words "cohaeredes et concorporales et comparticipes promissionis," defending the inelegance of the Latin by the importance of correctly representing the Greek. The genitive Ivayy. depends only on ro/x/xcr. The promise is the promise of salvation, of a part in the kingdom of the Messiah ; and to be partakers of the promise is to be joined with those to whom the promise is There is no need, then, to take y iray. as = the thing progiven. mised, still less to understand this specially of the Holy Spirit In the passages to which Eadie and others refer in support of such a restriction, the Spirit is expressly named, e.g. GaL iii 14; ch.
i.
13-
cv Xpurr<3 'Iiprov
and
8<a rov cvayycX/ov refer to all three epithets.
" In Christ Jesus through the gospeL" In Christ, not 8u, for He was not simply the means ; it was in His person that this effect
84
[IEL 7,
was produced. Cf. L 7 ; and for an analogous distinction between Iv and &<, even where both substantives are impersonal, 1 Pet L 5, iv Swa/ici ov tfrpovpov/tcvovs 81a wurrcws, and Heb. X. IO, br
<j>
Oikypari
rjyia.crp.cvoi
cotc
&a
rrjs
vyxxrôpas, jct.A.
7. 08 lyrf\br\v Suhtoros.
(fycnj&fv, yvrqBrjvai instead of the Attic ycvc<r0yv, C Dc L). The use of
"Of
is
condemned by Phrynichus,
frequent in later Greek writers (Polyeta), as is shown by Lobeck (ad Phryn. p. 109). There is no ground, then, for assigning to the word here a passive shade of meaning, as is done by Oecum., ov&tv yap iyib Ipyov Iphv owturr/vtyKa rjj \aptri ravrg. Compare, on the contrary, Col. iv. xi, tywySiyrw fiot vap-qyopla; 1 Thess. iL 14,
calls it
it is
who
bius, Diodorus,
HaL
fUfxrjraX iyv^0rjT.
denotes the servant in his denotes him in his activity for the Master, apparently on the ground that ouucovclv ti or rwi ti is said, and he compares 1 Cor. iv. 1 with CoL L 7. But xnrrjpcTclv nvl ti is also said (Xen. Anab. viL 7. 46 ; Soph. Phil. 1012), and the distinction cannot be maintained; see 2 Cor. xL 23, Siokovoi Xpurrov curt ; 1 Tim. iv. 6 ; and for vmjpcn^, Acts xxvL 16; Luke L 2. kotA tV Suped? ttjs x<piTS toO 6cou Ttjs Sofourrjs pot Kara ity Ivtpytiav -riis SuK<|is oAtou. According to the gift of that grace of God which was given to me " by virtue of the exercise of His power." rrjs Soflcunys is the reading of K A B C D* G, Vulg. Boh. The accusative is read by D c L> Syr., Chrys. The genitive is one of apposition, the gift being the grace given, so that the two readings do not differ in sense ; but logically the genitive has the advantage, as the grace required this further definition more than the gift. imotA tV ir. aftrou. These words, which are to be connected with hodtUnp, are by no means superfluous, but express the everpresent consciousness of St Paul that his mission as an apostle was not due to anything in himself, it was the grace of God given with Divine power that alone changed the persecutor into the Hence the accumulation omptd, x<*P'?> hodtUnp, frcpycia, apostle. 8wa/u9y proceeding from the feeling of his own unworthiness, suggested by ol ouc tyvrjOriv. "Nolite respicere quid sim meritus, quia dominus ultro mihi sua liberalitate hoc contulit ut sim apostolus gentium ; non mea dignitate sed ejus gratia. Nolite etiam respicere qualis fuerim; nam domini est homines nihili extollere. Haec est potentiae ejus efficacia, ex nihilo grande aliquid See Dale, Lect xiii. p. 235. efScere." iw 8. {pot t$ AaYUJTOT^Mj* jfdvrwv ayiutv 4&401) ^ X<p l? afrn\. is added before dyuav in the Received Text, against a great pre
huueovos.
Harless maintains that
8.
activity for that service, while vmjpcnys
m.8]
85
ponderance of authority. ayiW is used as a substantive. " To me who am less than the least of all saints " (i.e. all Christians) "was this grace given." Closely connected in thought with the
preceding, as expressing his own unworthiness in contrast with God's grace. 'EXaxun^Tepos. Double forms of comparatives and Wetstein quotes Eustathius, superlatives are frequent in the poets. who has collected numerous instances. But they also occur in the later prose writers, eg. /tciforcpos (Malalas, 490. 9 ; also 3 John 4) cAaxurroraroc (Sextus Empir.; also Matt iiL 54, ix, 406), apparently without any increase of meaning. The instances in earlier prose writers (Xen. Aristot.) seem to be invented by the The present instance is remarkable as a comrespective writers. It has a curiously bination of superlative and comparative. parallel form in Aristotle, Metaph. x. 4. 7 (Bekker), ovrc yap ro6 hrx&rov itrxarwTpov irj av rt ; but there the form is introduced only as expressing an impossible conception, and is construed as a comparative; here, on the contrary, Aaxt<rr<5rcpo? appears to express a definite idea, not only least of all saints, but even less than this implies. It may therefore be considered a unique The expression can hardly be interpreted, with some formation. eminent expositors, as referring to his consciousness of enduring sinfulness, as to which he could not place himself lower than all True it is, no doubt, that every Christian, when he looks saints. into his own heart, and is conscious of the sin that still dwells there, and knows that he cannot see what is in the heart of others, may be ready to exclaim, eyu> cAaxurrorcpos irairaiv dyiW ; but this does not express a deliberate comparison, and whatever such a one may feel at such moments, he would act unwisely if, when instructing and exhorting others, he should thus proclaim his own Such a confession would be likely to be misinferiority to them. understood, and either called hypocritical or made the ground of the retort, Why, then, take upon you to instruct and reprove your Certainly St Paul gives us little reason to think that he betters ? would take such a view. He declares that he has " lived in all
good conscience toward God " ; that if any one might have confidence in the flesh, he might, being blameless as touching the And as one of the ayioc, he righteousness which is in the law. does not reckon himself amongst the babes in Christ, but the He affirms that in nothing is he mature, tcXckh (PhiL iiL 15).
behind the \nrpklav awwrrokoi ; nay, he does not hesitate to call his readers to be imitators of him, as he is of Christ While never for a moment forgetting his own nothingness, and that it is only by the grace of God that he was what he was, he likewise never forgets his true position in Christ's service. And he was too much taken up with his work in that service to have time for indulging in that kind of self-examination which consists in analys
on
86
[UL 8
ing one's state of mind or one's feelings. In Rom. vii. 17, to which Harless refers, he is describing the state from which he has been delivered (id. ver. 25, viiL 2). His recollection, ever vivid, of his former career as a persecutor is quite sufficient explanation of the expression here used The same writers who hold that the iyiot diroWoAoi, ver. 5, could proceed only from an imitator who forgot his part, are of opinion that the expression now before us is an exaggerated imitation of 1 Cor. xv. 9, " I am the least of the apostles, that am not meet to be called an apostle." But there was no occasion there for any comparison with believers in general ; he is only speaking of himself as one of the apostles ; here he speaks of a grace that distinguished him above other believers, and, " now undeservedly," is his natural feeling. Indeed, we may with more justice say that this striking and unique expression could not proceed from calculated imitation ; it has the stamp of a spontaneous outflow of an intense feeling of unworthiness. Nor does it really go beyond the passage in 1 Cor.; for there he declares himself not only the least of the apostles, but not meet to be called an apostle ; here he does not say that he is not meet to be reckoned amongst the Syiou For the reader will not fail to note that notwithstanding the depth of his self-depreciation he still counts himself (or is represented as counting himself), and that not with hesitation, amongst the aytoc, the very term which when joined with &v6aro\oi is thought to be unapostolic. Yet no one supposes that dyiW here is inconsistent with humility. toTs IOkco-ik cdayycXurcurfat to di* {ixfiaoTOK nXouros too Xpurrou. It is absent The Rec. Text has iv before rots ft., with from K P. "To preach unto the Gentiles the unsearchable riches of Christ" This is what 17 x*P l* a^TV consisted in. afcy refers to what follows. Harless regards the words as an exposition of Sayrcrf, ifiot to avnj being treated as a parenthesis in order to avoid what he thinks would be unnatural, the close of a period within the long parenthesis, whose unusual length is only explained by the uninterrupted flow of thought In that case avn? would refer backward to ver. 7. But it is very awkward to separate cvayycAfo-ao-tfat from the immediately preceding rj x<v> avnj. As to w. 2-13, this is not grammatically a parenthesis, for the sentence in ver. 1 is completely broken off, and a new sentence begins in
ABC
DGKL
ver. 14.
Theodoret well remarks: ai *fc m/purrac Avcfixviaoros ; tovto yhp avro*, ^70*1, Ki/pvrro, ore dvcixvuurrof. The neuter wAovra, however, is the best supported reading in the text, being in 17 67** while K6 D iP have the masculine, "the riches of T
dvt(ixy(aL<rrov.
tl-rrtp
6 n-Aovro?
KL
K*ABCD*G
m. 9]
Christ "
1 Cor.
;

all
87
in
the
xi.
inexhaustible
blessings
contained
Him.
Comp. Rom.
xiii.
33 (where the same word avc&x- occurs), and 9-12, " We know in part," eta, and PhD. iiL 10.
tfxarltriu without 9. koI +*rttr*i [vdWot]. The reading is doubtful # T&rrat is is read by K 67s, Cyr. HiL and apparently Jerome. added by ItaL, Vulg. Syr., Chrys. al; Tisch. Treg. Westcott and Hort leave oat the word. The insertion seems easy to account for, as the verb seemed to require an accusative, which it usually has in the N.T. As to the sense, the advantage seems to be on the side of the omission. The general meaning is, indeed, pretty much the same with either reading, since the result of bringing the oIk. to light is that all men are enabled to see it But rdrrot would seem to represent this result as attained by opening the eyes of men, whereas, since it was by revelation that the apostle learned it, opening men's eyes would not be sufficient ; the mystery itself had Besides, the meaning given to QurUrau with the to be brought to light reading Tdrrar, viz. to enlighten by way of instruction, has no parallel in the N.T., although it is so used in a few passages in the Sept (Judg. xiii 8 a Kings xii. 2, xvii. 27, 28). Moreover, if rdrrat is read, although it is not emphatic, it cannot be limited to the Gentiles, and it would hardly be in St Paul's manner to claim as his the office of enlightening mil men as to the mystery*
vdmu
A KBCDGKLP,
The Ree. Text has *owi, Tit 4 oUofojiia too u4#oTT)piou. a remarkable variation, but found in few MSS. ohcovopta is in all the uncials, most cursives, and the versions and Fathers. 11 What is the arrangement, or administration, of the mystery ?" The mystery is that indicated in ver. 6, and that which was ordered or arranged as to the carrying out of this is the ouc. r. fivar. This was entrusted to St Paul ; cf. ver. 2. This seems more natural than to interpret oU. as the arrangement which consisted in
hitherto concealing the mystery and now revealing it Comp. Col. L 25, rrpr ouc rov cov ttjv Sotfcurdv ftoi cfc vfias vkrjpwoxu top Xoyov rov cov to fiwrrrjpiov to airoKwpVfifiiyov 6\wo
tw
aXmvWm
xvL 25.
tow AmccKpufipeVou, "which was hidden * o-cotw/i&ov, Rom. Comp. also 1 Cor. ii. 7, KaXavfjuev 0cov o-wJHav fr fjLwmjp&p
rrpf &iroKKpvfifUmfy,
diro twk almvwv, equivalent to xpoVois afamW, Rom. xvL 25, u from the beginning." The expression occurs only here and CoL L 26 in the N.T. aif aliavos (used also by Longinus) occurs in Luke L 70; Acts iiL 21, xv. 18. U rov al, which is used by St John, ix. 32, is also found in Greek writers. Comp. irpo tuv auwwy, 1 Cor. ii 7. iv t& cu t$ tA irdKTa KTtaam. "In God who created all things." The Rec. Text adds, &a *lrf<rov Xpiorov, with EPKL, Chrys. Theodoret, Oec. But the words are omitted by D*GP, Vulg. Syr. Pesh. and Hard, (text) and other versions, Tert Jerome, Augustine, al. It is not quite clear what is the point here of the words rf t4
KABC
88
w.
[m. 10
Krtomm. When the words 8ia *I. Xp. were read, a reference to the spiritual or new creation was naturally thought of; but these words being omitted, such a reference is excluded. But, in fact, it is remote from the context, and unsuitable to the emphatic and unrestricted vdvra, as well as to the simple ktio-olvti. It is clear that kt%iv cannot be applied to the /nxm/pco?, which The simplest explanation seems to be that is not a thing created. the Creator of all was free to make what arrangement He pleased bs to the concealment and revelation of His purpose. As Bengel
remarks " Rerum omnium creatio fundamentum est omnis reliquae oeconomiae pro potestate Dei universali liberrime dispensatae." Harless connects the words with the following: "Created all things in order to reveal in the Church His varied wisdom. ' But so important an assertion as this would hardly be made in so incidental a manner in a subordinate clause, especially as it has no analogy elsewhere in the N.T. Moreover, vw in the following clause is against this view ; see on ver. 10. 10-13. It is God's purpose, that even the angelic powers should learn through the Church the varied wisdom of God as shown in Mis eternal purpose in Christ 10. Ira yrapiotifj vvv tcus &px<us Ka * TO'S (ou<r(at9 if toi$ foouparCois 8t& ti\s icic\i)<rias 4 iroXinroiKiXos ao+ia tow 6eoo. 44 To the end that now might be made known to the principalities and the powers in the heavenly places the much varied wisdom of God" Jva is supposed by some to be connected with the whole of the preceding, or specially with iSofy *ct.A. This would make St Paul ascribe to his own preaching a result in which the other apostles had their share. But as yvwpwflfl is directly opposed to dirojccicp., and vw to &r6 t&v alwvw, the most natural interpretation is that the secret or mystery was concealed in former times in order that now the wisdom of God might be manifested in its fulfilment Braune, however, connects Iva with t& ?ofcc. tov yu "The arrangement is directed to this end, that the wisdom of God," eta Understood by some of the TaJs Apxatt ical tcus 4ouffiaif. older expositors of earthly powers in general, or of Jewish rulers in particular (so Locke), or again of heathen priests, or of Church authorities ; all from unwillingness to admit the sublime thought of the apostle, that God's wisdom in the scheme of redemption is an Comp., on the object of contemplation to heavenly intelligences. contrary, i Pet L 12, " which things angels desire to look into." V. Soden, comparing Col. iL 10-15, understands the words of the angelic powers which ministered the law on the one hand, and on the other hand the elemental spirits which claimed the veneraTo both was it now made manifest that the tion of the heathen. enmity was at an end
:
1
m. 11]
GOD'S
WISDOM DISPLAYED
89
It qualifies the preceding iv toIs firoupaKtois, local, cf. L 3, 20. substantive notwithstanding the absence of the article, which is Cf. Demosth. c. not necessary in the case of local definitions. Pantaen, p. 967, toU Zpyois iv Ma/wnvcip Aeschines, Fa Is. Leg. 42, rqv rpirqv irp<Tfotav iirl to koivov 'Afufyucrvovwv (Bemhardy,
:
rm
p.
3 22f0Sid
tt)s ^KKXtjaias, i.e.
it, Sea rip vtpl the phenomenon, which by its existence is a proof and exhibition of the Divine wisdom as manifested in a scheme of redemption which is world wide. iroXmroiKiXos does not mean " very wise," as has been hastily inferred from the use of woikiKos in Aesch. Prom. Vinct. 315, where, iroAwoiiciAos is used by however, the word means "crafty." Eurip. Iph. Taur. 1149, * cloth; by Eubulus, op. Athen. 15, In a figurative sense, as here, it occurs in p. 679*/, of flowers. the Orphica (lxl 4, of discourse), and in Theophilus. The Latin here has "multiformis." The word probably refers to the variety of God's dealings with Jews and Gentiles in former times, which Gregory of Nyssa are now seen to have worked to one end. (Horn, viii. in Cant. Cant followed by Theoph. and Oecum.) "Before the incarnation of our gives a striking interpretation. Saviour the heavenly powers knew the wisdom of God only as simple and uniform, effecting wonders in a manner consonant with the nature of each thing. There was nothing hwkiXov. But now by means of the oucovofua, with reference to the Church and the human race, the wisdom of God is known no longer as simple, but as iroAwrotKiAo?, producing contraries by contraries; by death, life; by dishonour, glory; by sin, righteousness ; by a curse, blessing ; by weakness, power. The invisible is He redeems captives, Himself the purchaser, manifested in flesh. and Himself the price." The thought is no doubt striking, but the Perhaps, indeed, the adjective vokwr. does not suggest Trapd&oov. word has been too much pressed by some expositors, and is only suggested by the thought of the great apparent difference and real harmony between the Christian dispensation and that which
as
Theodoret expresses
is
ttjv iKKXrjiTtav oiKovofuas.
The Church
preceded it
11. k<&t& irp<SOc(riK
t&k aUSiw.
ages."
The
genitive does not
seem
u According to the purpose of the to be correctly taken as that of
the object, the purpose concerning the ages, the foreordering of the ages (Whitby), since the writer is speaking of the one purpose Nor can irp60<ris be taken as = forecarried out in Christ knowledge (Chrys.). Modern commentators generally take it as = eternal. Ellicott compares irpd&o-iv . . . irpb xpovw auuvtW, 2 Tim. L 9 ; but then the latter words are connected with 8o0ci<rai/, not with vpoO. better sense is obtained by taking the genitive as one of possession, "the purpose that runs through the
90
ages.*
Cf.
[UL
13
Tennyson, " through the ages one increasing purpose
runs."
ty iiroiâtv iv t Xpior$ 'hjoou tw Kupiu ^pup. "Which He purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord." It is questioned whether The iTrolrfaey means " formed " or "executed" the purpose. immediate connexion favours the former view ; but it is urged by Meyer, Ellicott, a/., that what follows belongs to the execution, not the formation of the purpose ; and this has been thought also to account for 'Irjo-ov being added, since it was not the formation of the purpose, but its accomplishment that took place in the historical Jesus. For the use of irotciv in this sense we are referred Matt xxi. 31 ; John vL 38, and in the Sept. to ch. ii. 3 ; But in all these passages the object 1 Kings v. 8 ; Isa. xliv. 28. of the verb is OtXrjfia, which primarily means that which is willed, so that the exact meaning of \ OiXtffia is to perform that which God, e.g., has willed. It could not mean to form a purpose. With This properly means the purpose as an irpd&o-w it is otherwise. act, although by a natural figure it may also be used of that which is purposed. The natural meaning of voulv vp. 9 therefore, is to form a purpose, and the passages cited do not prove that any other sense is possible. Meyer also compares iroutv yvw/ti/v, Rev. xviL 17; but even if this were quite parallel, we cannot In any explain St Paul's Greek by that of the Apocalypse. case, when it is a irpd0c<ro iw alwvw that is in question, irotclv The addition of 'Irprov is would be a very weak verb to use. sufficiently accounted for by this, that the apostle desired to bring to the mind of his readers the thought that He whom they know as Jesus their Lord is none other than the Christ in whom God had from eternity formed His purpose. So likewise ch. L 4.
12. iv
if
eloper t^k irappr\<rlav

aurou.
ital
TrpoaaywyfjK iv irtwot&âci
%\&
Tijs irurrcus
with
So K A B 17 80, Greg-Nyss. The Rec Text has njr before Tpmytrrfr, C D K L P, Ath. Chrys. al. D* have r^r Tpoaayuyhv ical r^v rapprplaw. G : rpoaayiay^jv tit r^w vapprplar. The article seems more likely to have
for
been inserted
otherwise.
grammatical reasons than omitted either accidentally or
"In whom we have our boldness and access in confidence through our faith in Him." vapprfcia is primarily freedom of speech, and is frequently found in that sense in the N.T., as well It occurs as in that of "plainness of speech," John xvi. 25, 26. in the sense of " confidence " in the Apocrypha and in Josephus, eg. 1 Mace iv. 18, Aij^ctc to. a-KvXa /acto. it.; Wisd. V. 1, onfrrtTcu iv v. iroAAu 6 oucaiot ; so Phil L 20; 1 Tim. iiL 13 ; Heb. x. 19 The transition of ct x John iL 28, iiL 21, iv. 17, v. 14.
11
UL 18]
GOD* WISDOM DISPLAYED
meaning seems not to be by way of generalisation from confidence ; for the primary meaning is not " confidence, but "freedom, openness" of speech. But freedom of speech (in the active sense) implies the absence of fear or shame ; see the passages just referred to in 1 John il 28, "have ir., and not be ashamed"; iv. 17, ". in the day of judgment" In John iii. 21 and iv. xa, v. is connected with
in speaking to confidence generally
prayer.
On vpocraywryiq see il iS. The intransitive sense is obviously If the article is not read we must either the more suitable here. suppose irapprpria and Trpovaywryrf to form parts of one conception, or we must connect the following words with the latter only. What has just been said of irapprjo-la shows that the former alternative is quite possible, mpprprta teal irpwraywyj being nearly equivalent to Trpoaaywyrj fiera irapprfaia^ and the idea would be the same that is expressed in Heb. iv. 1 6, irp<xrcp;(<>/*c0a fitra vapprjcUK: r<p Opovy rip x"P(ro& Th e other alternative would leave vapprpia very
indefinite.
How grandly
(Meyer.)
is this
confidence expressed in
Rom.
viiL 38,
39
irciroi'diprtf is a word of the later Greek. It occurs several times in Josephus, also in Sextus Empiricus and in Philo, but only once in the Sept 2 Kings xviiL 19. 81& Ttjs irurrews afrrou. The genitive is that of the object, the *" >v; warns is denned by its object So in Mark xi. 22, lx Rom. iiL 22 9 26; James ii. I, firf iv irpwTunrok-qxf/iais t\rrt rrfv vCtrrtv rov Kvptov rjfiuiv, and elsewhere. The words are to be connected with cxo/xcf, not with *-roi0ij<r. 18. Aio ai-roupai pi) tyicaKCir iv tcus 0Xi+eai p>u dirip \>\ia>v. A^, viz. because I am the minister of so great a matter ; connected, not with the preceding verse only, but with 8-12. The greater the office, the less becoming would it be to lose heart The following words, however, admit of two interpretations. Either, I pray that I may not lose heart, or, I entreat you, not to The latter view is adopted by the Syr., Theodoret, lose heart Jerome, Bengel, Harless, Olshausen, Braune. In its favour it is alleged that it is much more natural to supply the subject of the infinitive from that of the substantive verb ; and, secondly, that it is But the chief objecdifficult to understand iv on the other view. tion to the first-mentioned interpretation, according to Harless, is from the structure of the whole passage. Either St Paul resumes in these words the course of thought begun in ver. 1, or he does not. Now it is the thought of supplication for his readers that separates the subsequent context from the parenthesis. If, then, he does not here resume ver. 1, how can we suppose that he could express the same thought in the parenthesis itself without observing that the
92
[IH. 13
If he does here resume ver. i, parenthesis was thereby removed ? the tovtov x-P tv êr 8id, instead of #ca^ is inexplicable, or rather intolerable. The argument assumes that alrov/uu means, I pray (God), and is set aside by taking that word as = I entreat you. The difficulties in Theodoret's interpretation are greater. First, if alrov/im is, I pray God, cov could hardly be omitted. The passages cited as parallel viz. CoL L 9 and Jas. i. 6, are not really so. In the former, airov/tcvot only expresses the content of the prayer mentioned in ir/xxrcvxoftcvoc, which, of course, means prayer to God. In the latter, cutcitw repeats the cutci'toi of the previous verse, which is defined by mpa tov StSorros cov iraxnv. Moreover, the words 71*19 i<m 86a vfitav supply much more naturally a motive for the readers than for the apostle. The pov after 0Atycri, too, would be superfluous if the apostle were praying for himself. And we may add that the implied apprehension lest he should be disheartened by persecution is not in harmony with the apostle's character or with his other utterances. He gloried in tribulation, and took pleasure in persecution (Rom. v. 3 ; 2 Cor. xii. 10 ; CoL L 24). Compare also the passage just referred to in Rom. viiL 38, But he might have reason to fear that some of the Gentile 39. converts might be tempted to lose heart when they saw the persecution to which the apostle was subjected just because of his proclaiming the doctrine, here insisted on, of the free and equal participation of the Gentiles in the blessings of the Messiah's
kingdom.
iv Tats OXtyccri pou faip Aptr.
behalf."
Phil.
"In my tribulations on your Namely, those which came upon him by reason of his
Compare
on the
his touching words,
being the Apostle of the Gentiles.

17, "Even if I cv denotes the rejoice."
ii.
am
offered
sacrifice of
your
faith, I
circumstances in which, etc.; inrkp vpfi>v is clearly to be joined to OXiif/cari /tov, not to alraOfua (as Harless). The article is not required, since 0A.t/far0cu vircp twos is possible (2 Cor. i. 6) ; cf. GaL iv. 14. rjris introduces a reason ; it is not simply jjns e<m W{a fljjwK. equivalent to rj, but implies that what is predicated belongs to the nature of the thing, "quippe qui," "inasmuch as this." It is eyfcaxciv by Theodoret, followed by Harless, referred to Olshausen, Braune, a/. This, of course, supposes the preceding prayer to be for the apostle himself. On this view it would be his personal fortitude that is the glory of the Ephesians, which would be a strange expression. If it be asked how his afflictions could be their glory, Chrysostom replies, " Because God so loved them as to give His Son for them, and to afflict His servants; for in order that they should obtain so great blessings Paul was im-
prisoned."
14-19. Prayer for the readers% that they
may be
given spiritual
m. 14, 15]
PRAYER FOR THE READERS
93
strength ; that Christ may dwell in their hearts ; and that they learn to know Bis lovey which surpasses knowledge.
may
" On
of
14. toutou X&PIV k4|ihtw tA yovard pou.

this account," referring to the train of
Resumes
ver. i,
thought in the
latter part
Although the construction was broken off in ver. 2, the thought has continued to tum on the same ideas. " I bend my
ch. ii
knees," this expresses the earnestness of the prayer, -rip *arasigno rem denotat," vwyiLW)v Serjaiv cSi/Aoktcv, Chrys. Some, as Calv., have with strange literality supposed that Calvin. the apostle actually knelt while writing ; (against irpos, see below). The usual posture in praying was standing: "when ye stand praying," Mark xL 25 ; "stood and prayed," Luke xviii. 11 ; "the publican standing afar off," ib. 13. But kneeling is mentioned, i Kings viii. 54 (Solomon) ; Dan. vi. 10 ; and, in the N.T., Luke xxiL 41 ; Acts vii. 60, xx. 36, xxi. 5. Eusebius mentions it as the custom proper to the Christians : to oIk&ov tow xP iaTlavo** r<*v v\^v tOos (H.E. v. 5). Justin Martyr and Basil represent kneeling as a symbol of our fall by sin. See on Luke xxii 41. Ka/x7rrccv yow in the literal sense takes the irpos tok ricH-lpa. dative (Rom. xi. 4, xiv. 1 1 ; both places, however, being quotations). Here as the words were equivalent to irpoorvxf"w> wpo's is used as indicating the direction of the prayer.
"A
After Uaripa the Rec. Text has rod Kvplov ^wr 'IrjeoO XpurroO, with Syr. Vulg., Chrys. a/. The words are wanting in K # 17 67**, Boh. Aeth., Jerome (expressly), and many others. The insertion of the words is easily accounted for ; there would be no reason for their omission. Although Jerome expressly states, "quod sequitur . . . non ut in Latinis Codicibus additum est, ad patrcm doniini nostrijesu Christie sed simpliciter ad patrem legendum ut dei patris nomen non domino nostro Jesu Chnsto sed omnibus creaturis rationabilibus coaptetur" (vii. 599), yet a little before he had himself written, "ad patrem domini nostri Jesu Christi." Whether the reading there is due to him or to a copyist, it serves as an illustration of the feet that the evidence of readings furnished by quotations in the Fathers as distinguished from express statements must be used with caution*
D G K L,
ABCP
10. ii o3
irfioa
iraTptd
iv
ofipoKOis
ital
lirl
YH$
6KOjJw[eTOt.
every family in heaven and on earth is named." meet here with a perplexity similar to that in ii. 21 (n-cura oijcooofii;), except that here no MSS. appear to have the article. should rather have expected the apostle to say "the whole Indeed, many family," which would require ira<ra y irarpia. commentators and translators have so taken the words as they stand. This was perhaps even more natural in the case of those who read the addition tov KvpCov âwv 'Iô-ov Xpiorov, since it appeared easy to take these words as the antecedent to ov, the sense thus yielded being that "the whole family " was named from Christ Whether that addition be accepted or not, if 7rao-a ir t is
"From whom
We
We
94
\UL
15
rendered "every family," the antecedent must be rov Uaripcu But if those words are omitted, the rendering "the whole family" loses much of its plausibility. Grammatically it cannot be maintained. Ilarpia is a quite classical word (although in classical writers iroTpa is more common). It occurs in Herodot in the sense " race " or " tribe," as when he says there are three irarpuu of the Babylonians (L 200). In the Sept it occurs in a similar sense of those descended from a common ancestor, narrower, however, than ^vA.17, and wider than olco* ; see Ex. xiL 3 ; Num. xxxiL 28 but also in a wider sense, as in Ps. xxL (xxii.) 28, ttoo-cu v IQvuiV. So in Acts UL 25, iraVcu at mrpial rfjs yifo for which we have in Gen. xii. 3 and xxviil 14 <t>v\a^ and in xxiL 18 and xxvL 4 I0n/. In Luke il 4 we have i( oIkov koX trarpw Aa/?tS. See note ad loc. Some of the ancients take *-. in the present passage as "-fatherhood, TraTporrp. Thus Theodoret says Ss dAi/lw? wripxu varrjp, 09 ov trap aXKov rovro \a/3<x>v Z\i, AAA* afro? rot? aAAot? /AcraS&OMCC tovto. And Athanasius " God as Father of the Son is the only true Father, and all created paternity is a shadow of the true" But, not to insist on the consideration (Orat. in Arian. i. 24). that this conception is of a kind foreign to St Paul's mode of thought, the word itself does not admit such a meaning; and those who have adopted it are involved in a difficulty with respect a difficulty which Theodoret solves by to the irarptal in heaven, understanding spiritual fathers to be called heavenly fathers; Jerome, by supposing the archangels to be alluded to as fathers. Setting aside this interpretation, we take the words as " every family." This cannot be understood of " the family on earth" and "the family in heaven," in whatever way these By respectively are interpreted, for vaxra implies a plurality. the varpuu on earth are doubtless meant the nations, with the fundamental division into Jews and Gentiles ; by those in heaven, angels regarded as belonging to certain groups or " tribes." dKOfM{Tai, i.e. gets the name irarpta, not, are called " sons of God," which is not in the words. Nor is it merely the fact of creation that is referred to ; for the relation of intelligent beings to their author is something deeper than that of things to their creator. Of things merely material God is the creator ; of per:
Hence the words suggest a sonal intelligences He is the Father. motive for the prayer, and a reason for expecting its fulfilment, for those addressed were also irarpia, of whom God was the Father. The rendering "every family" is therefore not only more grammatical, but more to the purpose than "the whole family," and the addition of the words rov Kvptov, k.t.X., injures the
sense.
ovofxalerai has
been taken by some to mean " exists," or "
is
m. 16]
95
called into existence "; but the verb never has this meaning, certainly not in i. 2 1 or v. 3. Even were it true that koXcif meant " to call into existence," this would prove nothing as to oVo/xaciv, for koAcu/ means to call in the sense " bid one come," which in
; whereas simply to give a name to a thing. Nor is it true that Kaktlv of itself has the alleged meaning it is certainly not proved by Philo's words, " to /irj ovra cxaAccrcv cfe to cbac" For oVo/u{cp0at Ik tivos, cf. Soph. Oed. Tyr. 1036, Sxrf wvo/ida-Orf^ Ik tv^?
certain circumstances might signify to call into existence

ov. is
tovti/s, 69 et
Iv*
S$
d|iiK icaTa
to itXoutos
ttjs So^tjs
adrou.
" That
He
would
grant you according to the riches of His glory." &3 is the reading B C G, whilst Son? is read by L and most MSS. The of Iva. depends on the idea of irooo-cvxo/tat implied in the preceding, so that this and the following verses express the content of the For iva cf. CoL L 9. "Riches of His glory," Rom. prayer. Not to be limited to power or to grace, but in accordance ix. 23. with His whole glorious perfection. The term irXouros is particularly suitable when the thought is of God as a giver.
DK
Surdpci
KpaTaiu0i)i'u
Sid
tou
riitiSftaTOS
afrrou
els
top
eW
strengthened with power through His Spirit in the inward man." oWa/ict is instrumental, "ut virtute seu fortitudine ab eo accept! corroboremini," Estius. Harless understands it as denoting the form in which the strengthening takes place, viz. a strengthening in power, not in knowledge or the like, comparing Acts iv. 33, " with great power gave the apostles witness " ; but In the present case this would be this does not seem parallel a tautology, " be strengthened with strength." jcparatottf, from the poetic Kparaws (used also in later prose and in Sept), is a later form for xparvvw. efe indicates the direction of the gift The meaning of 6 &ra> v0/Mi>iro? appears to be decided by Rom. vii. 22, "I delight in the law of God," Kara rbv c<ra> avOponrov. It is not therefore the jcati'ds &vOp. t but is the higher moral and rational nature, the Reason, which, by its constitution, is in harmony with the Divine Law, but in the unregenerate is enslaved to the power of sin in the flesh, that is, to the appetites and desires which constitute man's lower nature (compare Butler's Sermons on Human Nature). 6 &ra> av$. requires renewal, and undergoes renewal from day to day, droxaivovrat ^/xcpa xat tyicpa, 2 Cor. iv. 16.
has been maintained, not without plausibility, that the expressions 6 and 6 tu d*0a> are derived from the school of Plato, not directly, but through Plato's use having influenced common speech. We find in Plato, rod dyOpunrov 6 irrto Mpwrot {Rep. ix. p. C89) ; in Plotinus, 6 fUrta &r$p, (Enn, v. 1. 10) and 6 # &V0/>. The threefold division, xrefym, roOf, eQfta, in I Thess. v. 23, points in the same direction. With St Paul, however, the contrast between the inward man and the outward man is not that between
It
Mpunov.
"
To be
lo-w dVfy.
g6
[UL
17, 18
The inward man includes not only the Reason, the pure and the impure. which accepts the law of God and approves of it, and the Conscience, which pronounces the obligation and condemns the violation of it, but also the Will from which action proceeds ; see Rom. vii. 17, 18, where y4 is used of both parts. St Paul's view of the relation of the man to virtue and vice is much
like that of Aristotle. The man knows the right, but at the moment of action appetite blinds him. It deserves notice also that St Paul does not use rreOfxa of the unregenerate. In them the higher principle is rout, which ineffectively protests against the ff&tf, while in the regenerate vred/ia is superior (Rom. vii 25, That he does not mean rvevpa and ûx^ to be a complete viii. 4, 9). division of the human faculties, would appear from I Cor. adv. 14, 15.
more
17. KaTtHKij<rai top XpwrroK Sid Tijs
morcus
eV tois icapoicus dp*?.
dwell in your hearts by faith." icaroucô-at is, by many expositors, taken as the end or result of KparcmoO^vai on account of, 1st, the asyndeton ; 2nd, the emphatic position of the verb; and 3rd, the difference in the construction of the two clauses, which otherwise must be taken as coordinate. But although the use of the infinitive of end or result is often very lax, none of the instances cited in the grammars are parallel to this. Setting aside the cases in which the principal verb is one which means " to will, order," etc., or which otherwise involves the notion of purpose, in those which remain the subject of the infinitive is the same as that of the verb on which it depends. The emphatic position of Karoucrjtrai seems sufficiently accounted for by the importance of the idea it expresses, and the rhetorical advantage of giving The asyndeton need it a position parallel to that of KparaitaOfjvcu. cause no difficulty, considering the structure of the whole sentence.
Christ
icotouc is
"That
may
of it
KCLTouctw is
not something added to xparat., but is a further definition found in N.T. only here and Col. i. 19, ii. 9
It is very frequent in Sept (as in (but fycoTouccw', 2 Pet ii. 8). classical authors also), and is opposed to irapotMiv as the permanent to the transitory ; cf. Gen. xxxvii. 1, xarojKci 'Ia#cu>)8 tvTJj yd oS wapfKT)(Tv 6 -rraTrjp avrov ; and Philo, de Saerif. Ab. et Cain, IO, o yap rot? fyirvJcA/oi? ftovois liraviytav irapoiKeZ 0*0^19, ov jcaTotJcct (Thayer). It is hardly probable that there is any allusion to the figure in ii. 21, 22, for the indwelling here spoken of is not " How does Christ in the Church, but in the individual hearts. dwell in the hearts ? " says Chrysostom. Listen to Christ Himself saying, " I and the Father will come and make our abode with him." " In your hearts," " ut sciamus non satis esse si in lingui versetur aut in cerebro volit^t," Calvin. "Rooted and 18L iv AyAirn, e>pilpVot k /*? ircpurariprai especially with participles.
dvx<f/tcvo4
CoL
id.
iii.
ii.
2,
tva
-rrapaKXrjOQxriv at
X/>.
jcapouu
avrw,
.
ortyi/b/W^cn-cs ;
16, 6
\6yos rov
brouturia tv vfuv.
m. 18]
97
&8dV#coirc?; 2 Cor. ix. io, n, and 12, 13. Examples in classical authors are frequent. More prominence is thus given to the thought, and the transition to the following clause is made more easy. The result of Christ dwelling in their hearts is that they are firmly rooted in love, and the consequence is that they are enabled to comprehend, eta This is the view adopted by Origen, Chrysostom, the ancient versions (except the Gothic) ; and amongst moderns, Harless, Olsh. De Wette, Elticott, Eadie, Alford. The principal objection made to it is founded on the tense of the participles, which, being the perfect, would express, not the condition into which the raiders are to come, but that in which they are already assumed to be. This, it is said, would be very illogical in connexion with the wish that they should be strengthened, and that Christ might dwell in
their hearts.
The
perfect ippifaiUvoi in Col. ii 7
is, it is
alleged,
not parallel, since there the reception of Christ is represented as preceding irapcAa^crc rov Xpurrov. To this it may be replied, first, that in ch. ii. 20 the readers are said to be hroucoSo/irfiim^ and yet in ver. 22 there is still a owot*o6o/ut<r0c necessary; secondly, that the participles here express their complete fixedness on the foundation, which does not imply that their building up is complete ; and accordingly in Col. ii. 7 we have Ippilu/Uvoi teal IrotThe fixedness, Koiofiovfityoij the former perfect, the latter present The present participle too, is clearly the result of Karouajo-ai. would be here quite out of place, "ye being in process of being rooted and grounded." What follows depends, not on the progress, but on the completion of their grounding. The alternative construction adopted by Photius (ap. Oecum.), also Meyer, Braune, Oltram., the English Versions (Authorised and Revised), is to take the participles with the following clause "to the end that ye, being rooted," etc This construction is In Rom. hardly justified by the passages cited in support of it xL 31 we have rp vp*rip<f {Ac'ct Iva . . .; in 2 Cor. ii. 4, rip aydmqv Iva yvwrc: 1 Cor. IX. 1 5, to Kav^fjid pov Iva rU MP&rp (but here the best texts read o8ci? xcvuo-ct): GaL ii. io, twv frr<o\wv Iva fiyrjfwvv<Dfiv : John xiii. 29, Totf vrwôU Iva n S$ Acts xix. 4, Xryaiv cfe rov ip\6fivov per avrbv iva irurrcwrwru In all these instances there is a particular emphasis on the words which precede Iva, here there is none; the emphasis is on the
poW
words that follow it That there is a mixture of metaphors here, as in Col ii. 7 and 1 Cor. iiL 9, is not to be denied ; nor is this disproved by showing that f}toa> was often used without reference to its primitive meaning as simply *" to establish firmly," e^g. a tyranny, Herodot L 64, or the city (Plutarch), or even a road (Soph. Oed. CoL 1591). All that this proves is that there is no reason to suppose that the
7
98
apostle
[IEL 18
had two images present to his mind The best ancient were less critical in this matter than the moderns. Cicero, for example, has sometimes a strange mixture of metaphors (see In Cat. l 12). Lucian has t<u k<u 0c/tcA.toc rrjs 6pxnows \De
writers
Saltat. 34). It may be inferred
(like
from the use of the two words that St Paul Lucian in the place cited) did not intend the reader to think definitely of either image, but used the words in their applied This seems the true answer to the difficulty that has sense. been raised as to the designation of love as the foundation, position elsewhere ascribed to faith (CoL L 23, ii. 7), from which Beza asks: " Radicis et fundamenti love springs (1 Tim. L 6). nomen quomodo fructibus tribuas ? " Harless meets the difficulty by supplying the missing object of the participles from the clause to which they belong, viz. iv Xpurry; for which there is no sufficient reason, especially as we have already a definition by fr, so that the readers could not think of applying another cv. Love is, as it were, the soil in which they are firmly fixed. This is not to be understood of Christ's love or God's love, either of which would require some defining genitive, but the grace of love in general as the "fundamental" principle of the Christian character. Faith retains its usual position (8ia tt}? .), but it is love that is the working principle. 1 There is no difficulty about the absence of the article before Aycwrj/. Such omission before names of virtues, vices, etc., is frequent in classical writers and in N.T. For dyounfc c 2 Cor. iL 8 ; GaL v. 6. Westcott and Hort connect h? &ydvy with the foregoing (so also Holzhausen), but this overweights that clause. Besides, to say that Christ dwells in the heart in love is a strange expression. We might, at least, expect "by faith and love" rather than "by
faith in love."
Further, this construction leaves ipp. xal tc0. with-
out any modal definition, which they seem to demand fra tfwrxiSaijTe, "That ye may be fully able." KaTaXafMaOat, " to comprehend." The active alone seems to occur in classical writers in this signification (Plato, Phatdr. 250 D), but the middle is interpreted by Hesychius as = Karavocurtfcu. It occurs in this sense in Acts iv. 13, "perceiving that they were unlearned"; ** 34, "of a truth I perceive"; and xxv. 25, "finding that he had committed nothing," eta The first and last of these instances are sufficient to show that there is no need to call in the idea of "the earnestness or spiritual energy with which the action is performed"; the voice simply implies, "to grasp for oneself." Kypke (Obs. voL iL p. 294) takes the word to mean "occupare,"
l
Luke
vii.
somewhat analogous 47 : see note adloc.
difficulty
has been raised
in connexion with
HL 18]
99
"ut possitis occupare . . latitudinem quandam," etc, comparing the sense to that in ver. 19, as if ("mutato accentu") rl to irXaros stood for to irAaros re, as by a similar transposition we v&up. Apart from other objections, have in Acts viiL 36, the article is fatal to this. Tt to xX^tos ical fii)Ko$ ical iJ+os ical 0d0o$. "What is the breadth, and length, and height, and depth." As to the order of the words, fyo$ precedes /3a0os in 17, Vulg. Boh. aL\ L, Syr. al. the contrary, K The four words seem intended to indicate, not so much the thoroughness of the comprehension as the vastness of the thing to be comprehended; hardly, however, "metaphysically considered by the ordinary dimensions of space," which has only three dimensions. But what is it of which the readers are to learn the dimensions? Chrysostom replies, "the mystery," tovt l<m to pwrTqOlOV TO V7Tp tffLiOV olKOVOflTfOhr flTOL CUCpi/fcia? ClScWU. SO TTieodoret and Theophylact, Beza, Harless, Olshausen, Barry. In support of this, Harless remarks that the article shows that the substantives refer to something already mentioned. This is fallacious, the words being names of attributes, and the article is necessary to define them as the breadth, etc., of a definite thing, whether that is expressed or implied. Against the interpretation is the consideration that a new section of the discourse began in ver. 14, after which fivarrjpiov is not mentioned; and, besides, the HwrrrjpLov of w. 4-10 is the admission of the Gentiles, not the whole scheme of grace, as some of these expositors interpret Bengel understands the words as referring to the dimensions of the Christian temple. Eadie remarks, "The figure of a temple still loomed before the writer's fancy, and naturally supplied the This has much plausibility; distinctive imagery of the prayer." but the image has not been dwelt on since the first introduction of it, nor is it St Paul's habit to work out a figure at such length. If the remoteness of the substantive was a good reason for not adding a pronoun in the genitive, it made it the more necessary The preceding rclc/icAioytcvot w so far from to repeat the noun. keeping up the figure, or showing that it was still in the apostle's mind, that it rather tells the opposite way, unless, indeed, with Harless, we suppose br Xpurry to be understood. Indeed, in any case it is not the foundation of the corporate body that is there alluded to, but that of individuals. It may, perhaps, be replied that in ver. 14 the writer has resumed the thought interrupted at ver. 2, and that the figure of the temple had immediately preceded. But a more serious objection is that the substantives simply express magnitude, and the mere magnitude of the temple was not likely to be dwelt on with such emphasis. Especially is
Mn
AK
BCDG
100
[UL
18
the mention of the fourth dimension, "depth," adverse to this view, considering that the " depth " of the temple would be that of its foundation, and the foundation is either Christ or the apostles. This difficulty cannot be surmounted except by introducing ideas of which the text gives no hint, if, indeed, they are not inconsistent with the figure. Thus an old commentator (quoted by Wolf, ap. Eadie) says, "In its depth it descends to Christ" Bengel understands the depth as " profunditasy nulli creaturae percontanda"; the length, "longitudo per omnia secula." V. Soden combines these two views, regarding the fiwnyptov as the principal conception, the description of which, however, is finally summed up in the figure of the temple. De Wette finds the object in Col. il 3, which he supposes to have been before the writer's mind ; thus taking it to be the wisdom of God ; cf. Job xL 8. Alford supposes the genitive to be left indefinite, " of n all that God has revealed or done in and for us ; and this yields a very good sense. However, we need not travel beyond the immediate context to find a suitable object; it is given us in dyam7v rm> Xpiarov in the following verse. The thought comes to a climax; having spoken of apprehending the vastness of this, he checks himself before adding the genitive to advance a step further and declare that the dyamy toO Xpurrov is too vast to be comprehended. It has been objected to this, that the simple yvwwu would be a weakening, not a strengthening, of ver. 18. But, first, yvdvat is much stronger than KaraAa/fccrfat, which only means to come to know a fact (see the passages cited above); and, secondly, it is not simply yvcii'ai rrjv dyainyv, but yvwvax rrjy vircp/JaAAowav rrfc yvunrews dyomyv. The particle tc is not tc expresses more an opposed to this view of the connexion, internal (logical) relation, koi an external (Winer, 53. 2). Oltramare understands simply avn}?, ue. dydirrp.
Some of the ancients sought to find a special meaning in each of the four dimensions, and to such the Cross naturally suggested itself. find this idea already in Origen, "All these the cross of Jesus has, by which He ascended on high and took captive a captivity, and descended to the lowest parts of the earth . . . and has Himself run to all the earth, reaching to the breadth and length of it. And he that is crucified with Christ comprehends Gregory Nyssen also says that St Paul the breadth," etc. (Catena, p. 162). describes the power which controls the whole by the figure of the Cross, r$ By the height he ffxhp* r0 <rravpoO (Cont Eunom. Oral. iv. p. 582). understands the portion above the crossbeam, by the depth that below ; and so St Augustine, who explains the mystery of the Cross, " sacramentum crucis," as signifying love in its breadth, hope in its height, patience in its But he was not writing as a commentator. length, and humility in its depth. According to Sevenanus, the height alludes to the Lord's divinity, the depth to His humanity, the length and breadth to the extent of the apostolic preaching. Jerome is still more fanciful, and finds in the height an allusion to the good angels, in the depth to the bad, in the length to men who are on the upward path, and in the breadth those on the broad way that leadeth to
We
m. 19]
destruction. even in our

There are other
IOI
varieties. Such fancies (not altogether extinct days) only deserve notice as a warning of the unprofitableAs Calvin well observes, ness of such fanciful methods of interpretation.
own
" Haec
subtilitate
sua placent, sed quid ad
mentem Pauli?"
Nothing,
in-
deed, could be
more un-Pauline.
19. yvwvai tc t9)k ihrcpp<Wou<rar Ttjs yytSacus dydirn? tou Xpurrou.
And
to
know
the love of Christ, which passeth knowledge."
74, Syr. Vulg. read or interpret rrjy aydirqv rrjs -yvakrcws, " supereminentem scientiae charitatem," a reading interpreted by
Grotius as meaning the love which flows from the knowledge of Christ Both external and internal evidence are decisive against the reading, which may have originated from misunderstanding of the oxymoron. The genitive depends on the notion of comparison Comp. Aesch. Prom. 923, ppovrrfc vircp/JaAAovra ktvVov. in vircp0. " Suavissima haec quasi correctio est," Bengel. As if the very word " know " at once suggested the thought that such knowledge was beyond human capacity. "But even though the love of Christ surpasses human knowledge, yet ye shall know it if ye have Christ dwelling in you," Theophylact There is a relative knowledge which increases in proportion as the believer is filled with the spirit of Christ and thereby " rooted and grounded in love," for by yvwwu, then, is used in a pregnant sense. love only is love known, to yvtuvat, says Theodore Mops., &vrl rov diroXawrai Ac'yci (referring So also Theodoret, owarov i//ia b\a rip ttiotcu* to Ps. XV. II). koX dydirrp rip wev/umKifc \dpiro% AiroXawrai #cal b\a ravrqs KarafjLa$iv. . . . For a similar oxymoron in St Paul, see Rom. L 20, to. dopara avrov . . KaOoparau
quite different interpretation is adopted by Luther in his edition of 1545 (not the earlier), viz. " to love Christ is better than knowledge." Holzhausen defends a similar view, on the ground
(amongst others) that to express the other meaning St Paul would have said, as in PhiL ii 4, vrrcpcxowa vdvra vow. But he desired to express the thought as an oxymoron, thus making it more
Dobree renders, " the exceeding love of God in bestowing on us the knowledge of Christ" {Advers. L p. 573). He gives no reason, and it is hard to see how the rendering can be
striking.
defended. " The love of Christ," i.e. Christ's love to us. But knowledge of whatever kind is not the ultimate end, therefore he adds, not as a parallel clause, but as the end of the whole, tva irXrjpuOrfT* cfc tt*v to vkrjpwfia rov 0cov9 " that ye may be filled up to all the fulness
of God."
not of easy interpretation. Chrysostom gives two eov is the knowledge that God is worshipped in the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost, or he urges them to Strive wrrt irkrjpovo-Oat irdtnp dperrp fa Trkrjprp iartv
This
is
alternatives, either the irX. rov
102
6 0co.

This
is
[HL
is
19
the
rendered by
Newman, "of which God
fountain-head," but has been usually taken to mean " be filled, It even as God is full" (Alford, Olshausen, Ellicott, Eadie). is indeed added, "each in your degree, but all to your utmost capacity"; or, again, "the difference between God and the saint But there is no will be, not in kind, but in degree and extent" " such restriction in the text ; it is not, " rilled up to your capacity On (note irav), and the expression is one of degree, not of kind.
the same principle of interpretation we might defend such an expression as " wise with all the wisdom of God " ; yet the improMatt v. 48, " ye shall be tc'Acioi as (0*9) priety of this is obvious. your heavenly Father is tcAcios," is not in point, for what is there referred to is the single virtue of love, which is to be as allembracing as that of God. " They who love those that love them are incomplete in love ; they who love their enemies are t&cioi," Euthymius, cf. 1 Pet L 15. To be filled as God is full, could at most be set forth as the ideal to be attained or rather approached in a future state. When it is urged (by Olsh. and Ellic) that where Christ dwells there vav to vkrjp. rov ov is already (Col ii. 9), Oltramare, this is really to confound two distinct interpretations. taking vkrjfxafia to mean "perfection," and vXrjpowr6<u "to be perfected," understands the words to mean, " that ye may be perfect even to the possession of all the perfection of God." " The highest moral ideal that can be presented to him in whose heart Christ dwells, who has comprehended the greatness of love, and has known the love of God." Theodore Mops, appears to interpret the words of the Church, " ita ut et ipsi in portione communis corporis videamini in quod
vel maxime inhabitat Deus"; violence to the language.
:
and so some moderns, but does
Theodoret interprets Iva tcXciW avrbv froucov $irj<r$ ; and this has much in its favour, cfe, then, would be as in ii 21, 22, so that ye become the wXrjp. (as the result of loading a ship is that it becomes a vkrjptofia). God, then, is that with which they are filled, as in i. 23 and iv. 13 it is Christ. So KaToucrjrrjpiov rov cov, iL 22, is parallel to Karouaja-at top Xp. iv rats icapouu?, iii. 1 7 (v. Soden). But "to be filled with God" is an expression which, though capable of defence, would be open to misconception, and has no distinct parallel in the N.T. It appears more consonant with St. Paul's language generally to understand irk. rov cov as the fulness of the riches of God, all that is " spiritually communicable to the saints, [who are] the ' partakers of Divine nature,' 2 Pet L 4* (Moule). This is substantially Meyer's view.
B has a peculiar reading : Xva irAijpwfljj rar, which is also that of 1 7, 73, Westcott and 116, of which, however, 17 reads els vpas instead of rov 0eoO. Hort admit the reading of B to their margin, " that all the fulness of God
HL 20, 21]
may be filled up. n L 13.
D0X0L0GY
Comp. , however, the
loss of -rt of 4<r<ppayUr<hrri in
I03
B, cap.
20, 21. Doxology suggested by the thought of the glorious things
prayed for.
20. t$
olTod)icOa
all
l|
%vv*pivy
dirip
irdtnu
iroujacu.
is
dirt pCKirt piaaou
6r
rooufMK.
"
Now
to
Him who
able to
do more than
abundantly beyond what we ask or think." The object of the prayer was a lofty one ; but, lofty as it is, God is able to give more than we ask, and even more than we underNeither the narrowness of our knowledge nor the feeblestand. ness of our prayer will limit the richness of His gifts. Surely a ground for this ascription of praise, which gives a solemn close to
the
portion of the Epistle. not adverbial ; coming as it does close to iwforo, no reader could take it otherwise than as a preposition besides, as an adverb it would be tautological vn-cpcinrepto-orov, which occurs again 1 Thess. iii. 10, v. 13, is one of those compounds with vvip of which St Paul was fond, cf. virtpXiav, 2 Cor. xL 5 ; vn-cpirpurorcvco, Rom. v. 20; 2 Cor. vil 4. Indeed, St Mark also has xrrrtpirepuTau)^ vii. 37. Ellicott notes that of the twenty-eight words compounded with inrip, twenty-two are found in St Paul's Epistles and Heb., and twenty of these are found there alone. uv is not to be connected with u-avra, as there is no difficulty about joining it with vircpcnrcpuro-ov, which by the idea of comparison can govern the genitive (/.*. =tov7w a). kcitA tV &<W}UK tV ivpyouiUvr\v iv^lv. " According to (or by ivtpy. is clearly middle, virtue of) the power that worketh in us." not passive (as Estius). Onthovius, indeed, defends the latter view, maintaining that Ivcpycircu is always passive in the N.T., even Rom. vii 5; 1 Thess. ii. 13; Jas. v. 16 (Bibliothcca Bremensis, Classis According to Winer, St Paul uses the active of 4ta, p. 474). personal action, the middle of non-personaL Comp. Col. L 29. a 21. afrrfi 4 Uia iv Tfj latcXi)*!* xal iv Xpurrw li)<rou. "To Him be glory in the Church and in Christ Jesus." So K B C 17, b But *at is omitted by a/., Vulg. Boh., Jerome. P, Syr. (both) Arm. Eth. Goth., Chrys. Theodoret, Theoph. Oecum. transpose, and read: iv Xptorw "Iiyo-ov *al t$ iKtckqovp. This transposition is perhaps due to the thought that "Christ" should precede " the Church." It is not very easy to see why not should have been omitted if genuine ; on the other hand, it is easy It is, however, hard to resist the to see a reason for its insertion. documentary evidence for the insertion. If *<u is omitted we understand "in the Church," in which thanks and praise are given, " in Christ Jesus," not simply " through" ; but as St Paul so often uses this expression, and "in the Lord"; He is not the medium merely, but by virtue of His union with ^ ~u -"h it is
first
inrip is
A D KL
D*G
IQ4
in

that
[IV. 1
it gives glory to God. Olshausen and Braune, older commentators, connect iv Xpurrti 'Irjo-ov with rfj hucXtyrtQ. The absence of the article is not inconsistent with this, but the addition would be superfluous, since the JkkA. can only be that which is in Christ Jesus. If Jttu, however, is read, we must apparently interpret If similarly in both cases. The Church, then, is that by whose greatness and perfection the 8od of God is exhibited, as it is also exhibited in Christ Jesus (v. Soden and Moule). clt Ttbras t&s ycreta tou atoros t>v aufow dfu/jr. "To all generations, for ever and ever. Amen." There seems to be a blending of the two formulae ycvcal ycvc&F and auuvcs, or aubv, autwv. cts tow a&vac twv at. occurs Gal. L 5 ; Phil. iv. 10 ; 1 Tim. L 17 ; a Tim. iv. 1 8, besides the Apocalypse ; cfe rhv al&va twv al^vtav in 3 Esdr. iv. 38; and law rov al rwv al, Dan. viL 18 (Theodot). There seems to be no difference in the meaning. The phrase is understood by Meyer and others as designating the future auav, which begins with the Parousia, as the superlative age of all ages. It seems much more natural to explain it as the <uwv which includes many cuwve?, "in omnes generationes quas complectitur A obir, qui terminatur in rot* <uWa* perpetuos," Bengel But when we consider the difficulty of giving a logical analysis which shall be also grammatical of our own " world without end," we may be content to accept the meaning without seeking to analyse the expression. XV. 1 ft He now passes, as usually in his Epistles, after the doctrinal exposition to the practical exhortation, in the course of which, however, he is presently drawn back (ver. 4) to doctrinal teaching to support his exhortation to unity. 1-4. Exhortation to live in a manner worthy of their calling, in
Him
with
some
lowliness, patience, love,
and unity.
"I therefore, 4y& 6 ftfofuo? iv Kupiy. the prisoner in the Lord, entreat you." ow may indicate inference from the immediately preceding verse, or more probably (since it is the transition between two sections of the Epistle) from the whole former part, 6 Stafiux ev K. This is not to excite their sympathy, or as desiring that they should cheer him in his troubles by their obedience; for, as Theodoret remarks, "he exults in his bonds for Christ's sake more than a king in his diadem"; but rather to add force to his exhortation. "In the Lord" for "in Domini vinculis constrictus est qui iv Kvpty &v It does not signify "for vinctus est," Fritzsche (Rom. iL p. 84). Christ's sake"; compare owcpyo? Iv XpiomS, Rom. xvi. 3, 9; dymrwrfc iv Kuptip, ib. 8. It assigns rather the special character
vapoKaXw o&v
djufe
wnich distinguished
wapoKoXi*
this captivity
may be
either
" exhort " or
from others. " entreat, beseech n ;
IV. S]
PRACTICAL EXHORTATION
I05
and
in both senses it is used either with an infinitive or with a conjunction (Iva or oirws). Either sense would suit here, but " exhort " seems too weak for the connexion ; comp. Rom. xiL 1, where it is followed by " by the mercies of God," a strong form of appeal. More than exhortation is implied, especially as it is an absolute duty to which he calls them. "To walk worthily d(i*s ircptira-rijaai ttjs nXVjacus fc IkX^tc. of the calling wherewith ye were called." ifc attracted for 17V the cognate accusative ; cf. i. 6 ; 2 Cor. i. 4. True, the dative might be used with icoActv (see 2 Tim. L 9) ; but the attraction of the dative would not be in accordance with N.T. practice. " With all lowli2. |&ct& mo7)s TaireiFO+poouKTjs xal irpîott)tos.
ness and meekness."
pcrd
is
used of accompanying actions or
2 Cor. vii. 15); nd<njs belongs to both substantives. What is ravivwf>po<rvvrj ? Chrysostom says it is orav Tts ftcyac &v lavrov rairctvoi ; and elsewhere, orav peyaXa rU cavnp <rwet8a>s, prfiiv fUya vcpl avrov <f>avrd^rjTai. Trench says it is rather esteeming ourselves small, inasmuch as we are so, the thinking truly, and therefore lowlily of ourselves; adding that Chrysostom is bringing in pride again under the disguise of humility. In this he is followed by Alford and other English comA man may be small, mentators. Yet surely this is not right and know himself to be so, and yet not be humble. But every man cannot truly think himself smaller than his fellows ; nor can If a man is really greater than this be the meaning of Phil. ii. 3.
1 1 ;
dispositions (see Acts xviL
others in any quality or attainment, moral, intellectual, or spiritual, does the obligation of humility bind him to think falsely that he is less than they? It is no doubt true that the more a man advances in knowledge or in spiritual insight, the higher his ideal becomes, and so the more sensibly he feels how far he comes This is one aspect of humility, but it is not rairetshort of it And St Paul is speaking of humility as a Christian vo<t>po<rvvri. social virtue. St Paul declares himself to be not a whit inferior to oi vVcpXiav diroaToXot, and in the same breath says that he humbled himself; he even exhorts his readers to imitate him, and yet he attributes this very virtue to himself, Acts xx. 19. And what of our Lord Himself, who was meek and lowly, ?rpo? #cal rairetvos, in heart ? One who knows himself greater in relation to others, but who is contented to be treated as if he were less, such a one is certainly entitled to be called humble-minded ; he exhibits rawcivcxfrpwrvvT). Chrysostom's definition, then, is far truer than Trench's ; it only errs by limiting the possibility of the virtue to those who are great This is a peculiarly Christian virtue. The word occurs in Josephus and Epictetus, but only in a bad sense as "meanness of
spirit
1
'
irpponp
is
understood by some expositors as meekness
106
[IV.
toward God and toward men ; the spirit "which never rises in insubordination against God, nor in resentment against man * (Eadie); but its use in the N.T. does not justify the introduction of the former idea; compare i Cor. iv. 21, "Shall I come to you with a rod, or in the spirit of vp"? 2 Tim, ii. 25, "correcting in vp"; Tit iii. 2, " showing all vp. towards all men." Resignation toward God and meekness toward man are distinct though allied virtues.
The same
virtues are
mentioned
in
CoL
iii.
12.
" with long-suffering/' connected by some expositors with the following ; but Avcô/woi is already defined by iv dydirg, which is best connected with that word. The repetition of furd is rather in favour of than adverse to the parallelism with the preceding, ran-, and */>?. being taken more closely together as being nearly allied virtues. /MOKpoSv/ua has two senses steadfastness, especially in enduring suffering, as in Plutarch, " Never ask from God freedom from trouble, but iJuaxpoOvpl*" (Luc. 32) cf. Jas. v. 10; Heb. vL 12; but generally in N.T. slowness in avenging wrongs, forbearance, explained, in fact, in the following words. Fritzsche defines it, "Clementia, qui irae temperans delictum non statim vindices, sed ei qui peccaverit poenitendi locum relinquas" {Rom. L p. Compare 1 Cor. xiiL 4, 1} &yairq paKpo$vpL9 xp^crrcucrai. 98).
I&CT& panpoOufuas,
:
says
In his comment on that passage, Chrysostom rather curiously : paKpoQvpos Bik rovro Acycrat hrct&}] puucpdv rwa *al fuydXrjv
&vx^yot dXMjXur iv dydirg. " Forbearing one another in love." This mutual forbearance is the expression in action of pMcpoSvpia. It involves bearing with one another's weaknesses, not ceasing to love our neighbour or friend because of those faults in him which perhaps offend or displease us. The participles fall into the nominative by a common idiom, v/xi9 being the logical subject of dta>? mpurar.; cf.ch.iiL 18 and CoL L 10. There is no need, then, with some commentators, to supply iari or yfootfc 8. <nrou&d[orrc$ njpcir -rt\v Irdnrra too Trveoparos iv t$ avvhitr^ tt)s clf^mf|s, "giving diligence to keep the unity of the Spirit in die bond of peace." " Endeavouring," as in the AV., would imply the possibility, if not likelihood, of the endeavour failing. Trench (On the Authorised Version^ p. 44) says that in the time of the transBut in Acts lators "endeavouring" meant "giving all diligence." xvi. 10 the word is used to render c^njo-aficv, and except in this and two other passages it is not used for <nrov8aeo', which, in Tit iiL 12 and 2 Pet iiL 14, is rendered "be diligent"; in 2 Tim. The other iv. 9, 21, "do thy diligence"; 2 Tim. iL 15, "study." passages where the rendering is "endeavour" are 1 Thess. ii. 17, where the endeavour did fail, and 2 Pet L 15, where failure might
IV. 4]
UNITY OF THE CHURCH
I07
have appeared possible.
Theophylact well expresses the force
of the word here: ovk awovtos loywroncv eipijveiW. The clause expresses the end to be attained by the exercise of the virtues
for it is supposed already to exist ubi nulla fissura est, monitis opus est," Bengel. The " The unity of existence of divisions, therefore, is not suggested. "The the Spirit," i.e. the unity which the Spirit has given us. Spirit unites those who are separated by race and customs," Chrys., and so most recent commentators ; and this seems to be proved by tv Uvcvfia in the following verse. But Calvin, Estius, and others, following Anselm and ps-Ambrose, understand w. here of the human spirit, " animorum concordia." De Wette, again, thinks that the analogy of ivvnjs tt}* *rrrca>s, in ver. 13, is against the received interpretation, and accordingly interprets "the unity of the spirit of the ^Christian community," taking irv. in ver. 4 similarly. Comp. Grotius, "unitatem ecclesiae quae est corpus spirituale." (Theodore Mops, agrees with Chrys. The quotation in Ellicott belongs to the next verse.) iv tw oui&lajiu -rijs ctpTJKTjs. Genitive of apposition peace is the bond in which the unity is kept ; cf. crvvSto-fiov 8ucta?, Acts
mentioned in ver. 2. T7)pLv, "to preserve,"
"Edam
viiL 23,
is
and
o-wSco-ftos cwoia?,
Plut
Num.
6.
The
fact that love
bond of peace in Col. iii. 14 does not justify us in taking the words here as meaning " love," an interpretation adopted,
called the
probably, in consequence of iv being taken instrumentally ; in which case, as peace could not be the instrument by which the unity of the Spirit is maintained, but is itself maintained thereby, the genitive could not be one of apposition. But the iv is parallel to the (v before aydiry, and in any case it is not by the bond of peace that the unity of the Spirit is kept 4-11. Essential unity of the Church. It is one Body, animated by one Spirit, baptized into the name of the one Lord, and ail being children of the same Father. But the members have their different
gifts
and offices.
aupa nal
tv npeupa xaO&s *at IkXVj0i|t Iv ju$ iViri&i
4. tv
t%
" One Body, and xXiprcus tywK. in one hope of your calling."
tion in all
even as ye were called This and the two following verses

Spirit,
one
express the objective unity belonging to the Christian dispensaits aspects. First, the oneness of the Church itself: one Body, one Spirit, one Hope. Next, the source and instruments of that unity, one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism; and lastly, the unity of the Divine Author, who is defined, in a threefold manner, as over all, through all, and in all. Although there is no connecting particle, and yap is certainly not to be supplied, the declaration is introduced as supplying a motive for the exhortation, but the absence of any such particle
; ;
108

it
[IV. 5
and impressive. We need not even supply be viewed as an abrupt and emphatic reminder of what the readers well knew, as if the writer were addressing them in person. Still less are we to supply, with Theophylact and Oecumenius, " Be ye, M or with others, " Ye are," neither of which would agree with w. 5 and 6.
makes
more
vivid
icrri; it is rather to
; namely, the Church itself, so often thus described the Holy Spirit, which dwells in and is the vivifying Spirit of that body; cf. 1 Cor. xil 13. The parallelism cfe Kvptoc, cts 0co* seems to require this. Comp. 1 Cor. xiL 4-6, where to avro TJvcvfta, 6 avro? Kvptos, 6 avi-09 ko?. Chrysostom, however, interprets differently ; indeed, he gives choice of several interpreta" Showing (he says) that tions, none of them agreeing with this. from one body there will be one spirit or that there may be one body but not one spirit, as if one should be a friend of heretics or that he shames them from that, that is, ye who have received one spirit and been made to drink from one fountain ought not to be differently minded ; or by spirit here he means readiness, irpofo/ua." Ko0<fc is not used by Attic writers, who employ Ka0<ircp or ko$6. It is called Alexandrian, but is not confined to Alexandrian or biblical writers. iv fu$ &7riou iv is not instrumental, as Meyer holds. Comp. KaXtiv iv x*PiTt> Gal. i. 6; Iv clprjvy, 1 Cor. vii. 15; Iv ayiaoyxw, 1 Thess. iv. 7 ; nor is it = cfe or M, as Chrysostom. It is frequently said in this and similar cases that it indicates the "element" in which something takes place. But this is no explanation, it merely suggests an indefinite figure, which itself n requires explanation. Indeed, the word " element or " sphere n seems to imply something previously existing. What iv indicates is that the hope was an essential accompaniment of their calling, a " conditio " (not " condition " in the English sense). It differs from c in this, that the latter preposition would suggest that the "hope," "peace," etc., followed the calling in time. In fact, the involves a figure taken from motion ; he who is expression ci? called is conceived as leaving the place in which the call reached him. But kXtjo-is as applied to the Christian calling is pregnant, it includes the idea of the state into which the calling brings those who are called, "cv exprimit indolem rei," Bengel on 1 Thess. iv. 7 ; so also the verb. Hence such an expression as k\.7jtoX aytoc They are so called as to be iv AirtSt, iv cifrfvy, by the very fact of their calling, not merely as a result of it Hence, also, we are not to interpret "hope of your calling," or "the hope arising from your calling, which is hardly consistent, by the way, with the idea It is rather the hope belonging to that hope is the "element"
One Body
Spirit,
one
your
calling.
5. cfe Koptos, pia Turns, tv fidirrurâ.
" One Lord, one Faith,
IV. 6, 7]
UNITY OF THE CHURCH

One
109
Lord, Christ ; one faith, of which He is the nature and essence ; and one baptism, by which we are brought into the profession of this faith. The question has been asked, Why is the other sacrament not mentioned? and various answers have been given, of which the one that is most to the point, perhaps, is that it is not a ground or antecedent condition of unity, but an expression of it. Yet it must be admitted that it would supply a strong motive for preProbably, as it was not essential serving unity, as in 1 Cor. x. 17. to mention it, the omission is due in part to the rhythmical arrangement of three triads. 11 6. els ec&* xal va-r^p irdKTWK. "One God and Father of all. Observe the climax: first, the Church, then Christ, then God; also the order of the three Persons Spirit, Lord, Father. Ellicott quotes from Cocceius "Etiamsi baptizamur in nomen Patris Filii et Spiritus
one Baptism." object, one in
its
Sancti, et filium
nisi in
ful.
unum Dominum nominamus, tamen non credimus unum Deum." It is arbitrary to limit vdvratv to the faith-
speaks only of Christians, but then has not been used. The writer advances from the Lord of the Church to the God and Father of all For this notion of Fatherhood see Pearson, On the Creed, Art 1. 6 *t mftirw xal Sid. mftiaw nat Iv ir&aiK. " Who is over all, and through all, and in all" The Received Text adds vp.lv, with a few cursives, and Chrys. (Comm. not text) Theoph. Oec. fjulv is added in D G h, Vulg. Syr. (both) Arm. Goth., lren.
It is true the context
ir<*TC9
no pronoun in K A B C P 17 67 s Ign. Orig. al. It was, no doubt, added as a gloss, vatnv seeming to require a limitation. As irao-cv is undoubtedly masculine, it is most natural to take
There
is
,
tohw in
m(m?
by
both places as masculine

tvl licaoTip rjfiwv,
also.
Ver. 7 individualises the
Erasmus and some later commentators, however, have taken the first and second vdvrwv as neuter, whilst
the Vulg. so takes the second.
6 ivl trdvrwv
;
rove
ix. 5, 6 &v hri wdvrwy &tfc cvAoyipros ci? as a sovereign ruler. It is less easy to say what are the distinct ideas meant to be expressed by Sea and cf.
Rom.
a&vac
" Over
all,"
lv respectively.
is
The
in
latter is
;
more
individualising, the indwelling
each whereas &a vdvrmv expresses a relation to the whole body, through the whole of which the influence and power of God are diffused. It is a sustaining and working presence. This does not involve the supplying of frcpyuv. We are not to suppose a direct reference to the Trinity in these three prepositional clauses, for here it is the Father that is specially mentioned in parallelism to the Spirit and the Son, previously spoken of.
an indwelling
iic&rr? ^fiur &6Qr\ ^ X^** * OT& *& pfrpor ttjs ftupcas 7. toG Xpurrou. " But to each one of us the grace was given according
MW
IIO
[IV.
He passes from the relation to the measure of the gift of Christ" In the oneness of to the whole to the relation to the individual. the body, etc., there is room for diversity, and no one is overlooked each has his own position. Compare Rom. xiL 4-6 ; 1 Cor. xiL 4E, where the conception is carried out in detail "The grace," i.e. the grace which he has. The article is omitted in # but is present in fit C c most others. The , omission is easy to account for from the adjoining 17 in i&oOyj. "According to die measure," eta, i.e. according to what Christ has given; cf. Rom. xiL 6, "gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us." At* X*yi. "Wherefore itsaith"-"it is said" If any substantive is to be supplied it is 17 yp*<t>rj ; but the verb may well be taken impersonally, just as in colloquial English one may often hear : " it says," or the like. Many expositors, however, supply 6 cos. Meyer even says, " Who says it is obvious of itself, namely, God, whose word the Scripture is." Similarly Alford and Ellicott If it were St Paul's habit to introduce quotations from the O.T., by whomsoever spoken in the original text, with the formula 6 cd
BD*GL
A D K P"
Xcycc,
then this supplement here might be defended. But it is not In quoting he sometimes says A.cy, frequently 17 yp*<f>r) Acyci, at There is not a single other times Aa/ft8 Aeyet, 'Hcrauxs Acyct. instance in which 6 0co? is either expressed or implied as the subject, except where in the original context God is the speaker, Even when that is the case he does not as in Rom. ix. 15. hesitate to use a different subject, as in Rom. x. 19, 20, " Moses saith," "Isaiah is very bold, and saith"; Rom. ix. 17, "The Scripture saith to Pharaoh." This being the case, we are certainly not justified in forcing upon the apostle here and in cL v. 14 a form of expression conWhen sistent only with the extreme view of verbal inspiration. Meyer (followed by Alford and Ellicott) says that rj ypa<f>^ must not be supplied unless it is given by the context, the reply is obvious, namely, that, as above stated, 17 ypa<f>rj Xcyct does, in fact, often occur, and therefore the apostle might have used it here, whereas A cos Acyci does not occur (except in cases unlike this), and we have reason to believe could not be used by St Paul here. It is some additional confirmation of this that both here and in ch. v. 14 (if that is a biblical quotation) he does not hesitate to make important alterations. This is the view taken by Braune, Macpherson, Moule ; the latter, however, adding that for St Paul "the word of the Scripture and the word of its Author are conIt is objected that although ^170-1 is
vertible terms."
used impersonally, Acyci is present passage and ver. 14 are sufficient to prove the usage for St Paul, and there are other passages in his Epistles
not
The
IV. 8]
where
this
DIVERSITY OF GIFTS
sense
to
is
III
xv. 10,
it
at least applicable
in ver. 9
;
; cf.
Rom.
where Xeyci
is parallel
ycypaimu
GaL
iiL 16,
where
corresponds
But, in fact, the impersonal use of ^170-1 in Greek to ippÔrfouy. is quite different, namely = <a<rt, "they say" (so 1 Cor. x. 10). Classical authors had no opportunity of using Aeyci as it is used here, as they did not possess any collection of writings which could be referred to as 17 ypa<l>rj, or by any like word. They could say : 6 vo/jlos Acyct, and to Acyo/icvov. 'Avaffas elf ff+os jfxjw*XSTu<rK alxfwxXfcKrioK koI ISwkc &6paTa " When he ascended on high He led a captivity T015 drOpcfrirois. captive, and gave gifts unto men." The words appear to be taken from Ps. lxviiL 18 (where the verbs are in the second person) ; but there is an important divergence in the latter clause, which in the Hebrew is, "Thou has received gifts among men," the meaning being, received tributary gifts amongst the vanquished, or according to another interpretation, gifts consisting in the persons of the surrendered enemies (Ibn Ezra, Ewald). The Septuagint also has &a/?e? fio/xa-ra h> dv0panr, or, according to another reading, &Y$p<airo;. Various attempts have been made to account for the divergence. Chrysostom simply says the one is the same as the other, tovto ravrov iariv Utivy) and so Theophylact, adding, "for God giving the gifts receives in return the service." Meyer, followed by Alford and Eadie, maintains that the Hebrew verb often has a proleptic signification, " to fetch," />. to take in order The apostle, says Eadie, seizes on the latter portion of to give. the sense, and renders!6We. Most of the passages cited for this are irrelevant to the present purpose, the verb being followed by what we may call the dative of a pronoun, e.g. Gen. xv. 9, " Take for me " ; xxvii. 13, " Fetch me them." In such cases it is plain that the notion of subsequent giving is in the " mihi," not in the verb, or rather the dative is simply analogous to the dativus commodu This use is quite parallel to that of the English "get" In xviii. 5, "I will get a piece gf bread and comfort ye your hearts," the pronoun is omitted as needless, the words that follow expressing the purpose for which the bread was to be fetched. In xhi. 16, " Send one of you and let him fetch your brother," there is no idea of giving. In no case is giving any part of the idea of the Hebrew verb any more than of the English "get" or "fetch." But whatever may be thought of this "proleptic use," this is not the sense of the verb in the psalm, so that it would not really help. The psalm speaks of receiving (material) gifts from men; the apostle, of giving (spiritual) gifts to men. Macpherson says, "The modification is quite justifiable, on the ground that Christ, to whom the words are applied, receives gifts among men only that may bestow them upon men." But Christ did not receive amongst men the gifts which is here said to bestow. The
authors
He
He
112

:
[IV-
gifts to
Pulpit Commentary states " Whereas in the psalm it is said gave men " [which is not in the psalm, but in the Epistle], as modified by the apostle it is said "received gifts for men," which is neither one nor the other, but a particular interpretation of the psalm adopted in the English version. Ellicott, admitting that the difference is not diminished by any of the proposed reconciliations, "The inspired takes refuge in the apostolic authority of St Paul. apostle, by a slight (?) change of language and substitution of c&okc
for the
tively unfolds."
more dubious np^, succinctly, suggestively, and authoritaBut he does not profess to be interpreting (as in Rom. x. 6, 7, 8), but quoting. Such a view, indeed, would open
the door to the wildest freaks of interpretation ; they might not, indeed, command assent as inspired, but they could never be rejected as unreasonable. The change here, far from being slight, is just in that point in which alone the quotation is connected either with what precedes or with what follows. The supposition that St Paul does not intend either to quote exactly or to interpret, but in the familiar Jewish fashion adapts the passage to his own use, knowing that those of his readers who were familiar with the psalm would recognise the alteration and see the purpose of it, namely, that instead of receiving gifts of homage Christ gives His gifts to men, is not open to any serious objection, since he does not found any argument on the passage. So Theodore Mops., who remarks that v7raAAaa$ to cXa/fc Sofiara ovtok Iv r<j> if/aXfiw kci/acvov, wraXXayg xept r^v olxtCav xpT}<rdpLCVos cSomcc Sofiara ctn-c, tq SjcokovOtav* ckci /xcv yap irpbs ttjv vtroOtaiv to JfAa/Jev j^tytorrcv, Ivrav$a Sk t<3 irpoKtfivip to t&Wcv Sjco\ov$ov rjv. As Oltramare observes : Paul wishes to speak of the spiritual gifts granted to the Christian in the measure of the gift of Christ, exalted to heaven. An expression of Scripture occurs to him, which strikes him as being "le mot de la situation." Depicting originally the triumph of God, it strikes him as expressing well {mutatis mutandis) the triumph of Christ, but he does not identify either the facts or the It is, however, remarkable that the same interpretation persons. of the words of the psalm is given in the Syriac Version and in the Targum. The former may have followed St Paul, as the Arabic and Ethiopic, although made from the Septuagint, have done; and it has been suggested that the Targumist, finding a difficulty, an improbable supposition. In his expansion followed the Syriac, he interprets the words of Moses, "Thou didst ascend to the firmament, Moses the prophet, thou didst take a captivity captive, thou didst teach the words of the law, thou gavest gifts This Targum as we have it is of comparato the sons of men." tively late date. But if we may assume, as no doubt we may, that
IV. 8]
DIVERSITY OF GIFTS
113
it is giving us here an ancient interpretation, we have a solution of the difficulty so far as St. Paul is concerned ; he simply made use of the Rabbinical interpretation as being suitable to his purpose. Compare 1 Cor. x. 4. No doubt the question remains, What led the Targumist to take this view of the passage? Hitzig suggest* that as the receiving of gifts seemed not consonant with the majesty of God, the paraphrast mentally substituted for npb the verb p&n, which has the same letters in a different order, and means "to divide, give a portion," etc This verb is rendered by the Sept in Gen. xlix. 27 (EV. "divide"), while in 2 Chron. xxviii. 21, where it occurs in an otherwise unexampled w (EV. "took a portion out of"), the Sept baa sense " plunder cAa/?cv (to. h>). The feeling that prompted the paraphrast here shows itself also in Rashi's comment, " took, that thou mightest
&Wif
give.*
This renders needless a recourse to the supposition that the quotation is from a Christian hymn, which borrowed from the psalm. The objection raised to this and to the preceding view from the use of Acyct, has no force except on the assumption that cos is to be supplied; and, in fact, in ver. 14 many expositors suppose that it is a hymn that is quoted in the same manner. Nor can it be truly alleged that St Paul here treats the words as belonging to canonical Scripture, for he draws no inference from them, as we shall see. Indeed, if he himself had altered than, instead of adopting an existing alteration, it would be equally impossible for him to argue from the altered text as if it were canonical ^XâActfrcvo-cv cux/iaXa>ow. " Took captive a body of captives," the cognate accusative, abstract for concrete, as the same word is used in 1 Esdr. v. 45 and Judith ii. 9. We have the same expression " Arise, Barak, and lead thy captivity in the song of Deborah captive, thou son of Abinoam," Judg. v. 12, which is perhaps die source of the expression in the psalm. The interpretation adopted n in a popular hymn, "captivity is captive led," as if " captivity meant the power that took captive, is quite untenable, and such a use of the abstract is foreign to Hebrew thought Who are these captives? Chrysostom replies: The enemies of Christ, viz. Satan, sin, and death. In substance this interpretation is no doubt correct, but it is unnecessary to define the enemies ; the figure is general, that of a triumphant conqueror leading his conquered enemies in his train. Compare CoL ii. 15. To press the figure further would lead us into difficulties. These enemies are not yet finally destroyed, Itrxaros i\0p* *arupycircu & Bavaros (1 Cor. xv. 25). Theodoret interprets the "captives" as the redeemed (as Justin had already done), namely, as having been captives of the
:
14

od ykp &cv0coovs ivras
6.vTTjxfJLa
rjpJas
(J
[IV.
devil,
flx/mAcorcvo-cv, <5XX*
,
M>
rov
rjfuv
&Lafi6\ov ycycv^/t&ov?
iSiaprjo-aTo
^ *Tv<rV
xal rtfv
ikcvOtpCav
so many moderns. But this does not agree ; and with the construction by which the alxfiaKaxria must be the result of the action of the verb. Besides, the captives are distinguished from avdpwrot. The same objections hold against the view that the captives are the souls of the righteous whom Christ delivered from Hades (Lyra, Estius).
"And gave gifts." jcoi is omitted in K* C* D* 17, al. ; but inserted in K B C* and D L P, a/. Syr. tendency to assimilate to the passage in the psalm appears in the reading Mjtakurrcwrais in L and several MSS., which nevertheless read cowccy. For the gifts compare Acts ii. 33. 'Aflpi) ti t<rriv cl p?) 0V1 k<&1 Karlpi) els t& ita-mSrepa 9* t& " Now that He ascended, what is it but that He \UfH\ ti)s yv)s. also descended into the lower parts of the earth?"
here a very important variety of reading without wpQrop is the reading of K # C* 17 67", Boh. Sahid. Eth. Amiat, Iren. Orig. Chrys. (Comm.) Aug. Jerome. most mss. Vulg. Goth. Syr. Karifa rpurow is read in K
There
is
caWjffif
DG
BCKLP,
footh) Arm.,
Theodoret
The weight of authority is decidedly on the side of omission. Transcriptional evidence points the same way. The meaning which presented itself on the surface was that Christ who ascended had had His original seat in heaven, and that what the apostle intended, therefore, was that descended
He
before He ascended ; hence wpurw would naturally suggest itself to the mind On the other hand, it is not easy to see why it should be of a reader. Reiche, indeed, takes the opposite view. omitted. The word, he says, might seem superfluous, since both in ver. 8 and ver. 10 we have dra/3dt eft tyot without Tfxaror ; or, again, unsuitable, since Christ descended but once, supposing, namely, that the reference to dvap&s was missed. He thinks Tpwrov all but necessary to the argument of the apostle. This is just what some early copyists thought, and it is a consideration much more likely to have affected them than the opposite one, that the word was superfluous. It is rejected by most critics, but Westcott and Hort admit it to a place in the
margin.
while it is fUprj after cartfe-cpa has the authority of fit omitted by # (not f) The versions and Fathers are divided. The word is read in Vulg. Boh. Arm. Syr-Pesh., Chrys. Theodoret, Aug., but omitted by Goth. Syr. (Sch.) Eth., Ircn. Theodotus. The insertion or omission makes no difference in the sense. Most recent critical editors retain the word. Tischendorf rejected it in his seventh, but restored it in his eighth edition. Alford, Ellicott, and Meyer pronounce against it; the last-mentioned suggesting that it is a gloss due to the old explanation of the descent into hell, in order to mark the place as subterranean.
D G
ABCD*KLP,
not the word <frc/fy, which had not occurred, implied in dva/?a?. ri iamv cl /atJ, k.tX, i.e. " what to. KaTurcpa tj/s y^s. The genitive (toes this mean but," eta may be either partitive, the lower as distinguished from the higher parts of the earth, or of apposition, the lower regions, i.e. those of
to Sk
'Avc'/fy, i.e.
is
but that which
IV. 9]
DIVERSITY OF GIFTS
11$
the earth. With the former interpretation we may understand either death simply, as Chrysostom and the other Greeks, ra k&tw fiiprf ri}s yfjs toy Odvarov (frrjcrw, diro rtj% rv dvdpwnnav xnrovoias, quoting Gen. xliv. 29 ; Ps. cxHL 7 ; or Hades, as the place where departed spirits live, which is the view of Tertullian, Irenaeus, Jerome, and many moderns, including Bengel, Olshausen, Meyer (later editions),
Alford, Ellicott, Barry. But there are serious objections to this. First, if the apostle had meant to say that Christ descended to a depth below which there
was no deeper, as He ascended to a height above which was none higher, he would doubtless have used the superlative, ra xararrcpa
yifa if the genitive is partitive, could mean " the low-lying regions of the earth," in opposition to ra avwepuca fitprj (Acts Meyer, indeed, takes the genitive as depending on the jrix. 1). comparative; but this would be an awkward way of expressing what would more naturally have been expressed by an adverb, ra Karc&rara rijs yj/5 occurs in the Sept Ps. lxiii. 9, cxxxix. 15 (icar(arara>) ; but in the former place the words mean death and destruction ; in the latter they figuratively denote what is hidden, the place of formation of the embryo. The corresponding Hebrew phrase is found in Ezek. xxxii. 18, 24, referring to death and destruction, but rendered fiados -rip yifc. Cf. Matt xi. 23, where $Zov is used similarly. Such passages would support Chrysostom's But, secondly, all view rather than that under consideration. these Old Testament expressions are poetic figures, and in a mere statement of fact like the present, St Paul would hardly have given such a material local designation to the place of departed spirits, especially in connexion with the idea of Christ filling all things. Thirdly, the antithesis is between earth and heaven, between an ascent from earth to heaven, and a descent which is therefore Some, indeed, who adopt this probably from heaven to earth. view understand the descent as from heaven, some as from earth. For the argument from the connexion, see what follows. For these reasons it seems preferable to take "the lower parts of the earth" as = " this lower earth." Those who adopt this view generally assume that the descent preceded the ascent, and therefore understand by the descent, the Incarnation. This view, however, is not free from difficulty. St Paul is speaking of the unity of the whole on the one hand, and of the diversity of individual gifts on the other. The latter is the topic in ver. 7 and again in ver. 11. To what purpose would be an interpolation such as this? It is not brought in to prove the heavenly pre* existence of Christ; that is assumed as known; for ascent to heaven does not imply descent thence, except on that assumption. And why the emphatic assertion of the identity of Him who ascended with Him who had previously descended, which was self-evident?
fiiprj r!}?
Il6
[IV. 10, 11
But, in fact, this ascension is not what is in question, but the giving of gifts ; what had to be shown was, that a descent was necessary, in order that He who ascended should give gifts. The descent, then, was contemporaneous with the giving, and, therefore, subsequent to the ascent This seems to be indicated by the *<u' It seems hardly possible to take *<u Karc/fr? before #caTc/fy. otherwise than as expressing something subsequent to <W/fy. The meaning then is, that the ascent would be without an object, unless it were followed by a descent This is the descent of Christ to His Church alluded to in iL 17, "came and preached"; " in iil 17, " that Christ may dwell in your hearts ; and which we also find in John xiv. 23, "we will come to Him " ; also ib. 3 and xvL 22. It is now clear why it was necessary to assert that o This interpretation is ably Karafiax was the same as 6 <W/?as.
maintained by v. Soden. 10. 6 KdTapfa afafc irnw xal 6 arapas farepdw -ffrfiTW rdr " He Himself that descended ofipawy Ira ir\T)fx&rg t& vitro. is also He that ascended high above all the heavens, that He might fill all things. ' ovrds is not " the same," which would be 6 avro?, but emphatic. oh yap oAAos #carc\ijA,vdc #cai aAAos dpcAi^Xvdcv, Theodoret "All the heavens" is probably an allusion to the seven heavens of the Jews. Cf. 2 Cor. xii. 2, rptTos ovpavos, and Heb. iv. 14, SttXrjkvOora tovs ovpayovs, " that He might fill all
1
things."
This has sometimes been understood to mean " that He might the universe," as when we read in Jer. xxfiL 24, /irj ovxl rbv ovpavbv koX rip? yrjv iyw v\rjp5> ; But how can the occupation of a special place in heaven have for its object presence throughout the universe? Moreover, this does not agree with the context, which refers to the gifts to men. In fact, in order to explain this connexion, the omnipresence is resolved by some commentators into the presence everywhere of His gifts (Harless), or else of His government (Chrys, a/.). A similar result is reached by others, who take rrXrjpiacrg as meaning directly "fill with His gifts" (De Wette, Bleek, */.), to mvra being either the universe, or men, or members of the Church. But irkrjpovv by itself can hardly mean " fill with
fill
gifts."
Ruckert explains, "accomplish
all," viz. all
that
He
had
to
accomplish. But the words must clearly be interpreted in accordance with L 23, to. wdvra iv iroW TrXrjpovficvov, which they obviously repeat Oltramare interprets, " that He might render all perfect, and (in conformity with this purpose), He gave," eta 11. xal auro? 3&mcck rods per dirocrro'Xous, Tois 8 J irpo+^TOs, Tods " And He Him84 cfiayycXioTcfc , rods 84 iroi)Uva$ xal SiScuncclXoiif.
self
gave some as apostles, some as prophets, some as evangelists,

as pastors
some
and
teachers.
IV. 11]
DIVERSITY OF GIFTS
117
Z&wkcv is not a Hebraism for lOero (1 Cor. xii. 28); it is obviously chosen because of JfSowccv So/tara in the quotation, as if It is not die apostle had said, "the gifts He gave were," etc. merely the fact of the institution of the offices that he wishes to bring into view, but the fact that they were gifts to the Church. Christ gave the persons ; the Church appointed to the office (Acts The enumeration here must be compared with xiiL 2, xiv. 23). that in 1 Cor. xii. 28, "God hath set some in the Church, first, apostles; secondly, prophets; thirdly, teachers; then miraculous powers, then gifts of healing, helps, governments, divers kinds of tongues." There the order of the first three is expressly defined the latter gifts are not mentioned here, perhaps, as not expressing offices, but special gifts which were only occasional ; and, besides, they did not necessarily belong to distinct persons from the former. " Apostles. 91 This word is not to be limited to the Twelve, as Lightfoot has shown in detail in his excursus on Gal. L 17. Besides St Paul himself, Barnabas is certainly so called (Acts xiv. 4, 14); apparently also James the Lord's brother (1 Cor. xv, 7 ; GaL L 19), and Silvanus (1 Thess. ii. 6, "we might have been burdensome to you, being apostles of Christ "). In Irenaeus and Tertullian the Seventy are called apostles (Iren. ii. 21. 1 ; Tert adv. Marc. iv. 24). According to the Greek Fathers, followed by lightfoot, Andronicus and Junia are called apostles in Rom. xvL 7. In 2 Cor. viiL 23 and Phil. ii. 25 the messengers of the Churches are called " apostles of the Churches." But to be an apostle of Christ k seems to have been a condition that he should have seen Christ, 1 Cor. ix. 1, 2, and have, moreover, been a witness of the resurrection (Acts L 8, 21-23). Their office was not limited Prophets are mentioned along with to any particular locality. Chrysostom distinguishes them from apostles in ii. 20, iii 5. " teachers " by this, that he who prophesies utters everything from the spirit, while he who teaches sometimes discourses from his own understanding. "Foretelling" is not implied in the word In classical either etymologically or in classical or N.T. usage. writers it is used of interpreters of the gods. For N.T. usage, compare Matt xxvi. 68, "Prophesy, who is it that smote thee"; Tit L 12, "a prophet of their own," where it is used in the sense of the Latin " vates " ; Matt xv. 7, " well hath Isaiah prophesied of you"; and especially 1 Cor. xiv. 3, "He that prophesieth speaketh unto men to edification, and exhortation, and comfort" Abo Acts xv. 32, "Judas and Silas, being themselves also prophets, exhorted the brethren . . . and confirmed them." The function of the prophet has its modern parallel in that of the Christian preacher, who discourses "to edification, exhortation, and com" Preachfort" to those who are already members of the Church.
18
[IV. 11
ing," in the English Version of the N.T., means proclaiming the gospel to those who have not yet known it (m^wn-civ, cvayycAi'fcrtai).
By
"evangelists"
it
we
are doubtless to understand those
whose
in sub-
special function
was to preach the gospel to the heathen
ordination to the apostles. They did not possess the qualifications or the authority of the latter (irepuoVrce iK-qpvrrov, says Theodoret). One of the deacons is specially called an evangelist (Acts xxL 8). Timothy is told by St Paul to do the work of an evangelist, but his office included other functions. The first question is whether rods 82 irotpcVas xal BiBcuncdLXous. these words express distinct offices or two characters of the same Many commentators both ancient and modern adopt office. the former view, differing, however, greatly in their definitions. Theophylact understands by "pastors," bishops and presbyters, and by " teachers," deacons. But there is no ground for supposing that deacons would be called Moo-koXoi. On the other hand, the circumstance that tov* 8c is not repeated before SioWkoAoi* is in favour of the view that the words express two aspects of the same office. So Jerome " Non enim ait : alios autem pastores et alios magistros, sed alios pastores et magistros, ut qui pastor est, esse debeat et magister." This, indeed, is not quite decisive, since it might only mark that the gifts of pastors and of teachers are not so sharply distinguished from one another as from those that precede ; and it must be admitted that in a concise enumeration such as the present, it is in some degree improbable that this
have a double designation. This nuch is " pastors and teachers " differ from the preceding classes The name "pastors" in being attached to particular Churches. implies this, and this term no doubt includes cVtbncoirot and irpccr/?vrcpot. Compare i Pet v. 2 (addressing the irpccr/Wrcpoi), voifidvar to ev vfilv ttoi'/xviov tov 0ov, cirtovroirovVrc? (om. RV. I Pet ii. 25, rbv irotfiiya teal Mo'KOirov rwv i/ru^cSv v/uSv} mg.) where cVio-koitov seems to explain iroifirjv Acts xx. 28, nj iroi/mfia to ayiov 0cto cViotcottow, iroLfiairiv Ttfy iiack. noifirjv was used in the earliest classical writers of rulers of the Even in Homer we have Agamemnon, for instance, people. called voiiirjv \av. The irotftiyv of a Christian Church would, of course, be a teacher as well as a governor ; it was his business to guide the sheep of the flock ; cf. 1 Tim. iiL 2, 8 rbv tvicricoirov b\b\ucTuc6v (ctvcu) also Tit L 9. But there would naturally be . . . other teachers not invested with the same authority and not forming a distinct class, much less co-ordinate with the lirto-Koiroc Had rove &7 been repeated, it might have seemed to separate sharply the function of teaching from the office of irotftrjv. It is easy to see that iwuncoiros would have been a much less suitable
particular class should
clear, that
: : :
IV. 12]
IDEAL PERFECTION OF THE SAINTS

it
XI9
word
here, since
does not suggest the idea of a moral and

'
spiritual relation.
12-16. The object of all is the perfection of the saints, that they may be one in the faith, and mature in knowledge, so as not to be carried away by the winds offalse doctrine ; but that the whole body, as one organism deriving its nourishment from the Bead, maybe
perfected in love. 12. po$ Tor KaTapTurp&r rfir Ayiw, cts ?pyor BiajcoKtaf* elf oUoSopV toG otffioTos tou Xpurrou. " With a view to the perfecting of the saints unto the work of ministering, unto the building up of 9 the body of Christ ' The Karoprurpo? &y. is the ultimate purpose, with a view to which the teachers, eta, have been given cfc Zpyov Suuc cfe ouc ic.t.X. The Authorised Version follow* Chrysostom in treating the three clauses as co-ordinate, hccurm The change in the ohcc&OfKt, hccurro? Karaprtfaiy fcooTos ouucovci prepositions is not decisive against this, for St Paul is rather fond of such variety. But if the three members were parallel, tyyov cWovtas should certainly come first as the more indefinite and the
iw
In fact, Grotius and others suppose the thoughts plausible view is that adopted by De Wette and many others, that the two latter members depend on the first " With a view to the perfecting of the saints, so that they may be able to work in every way to the building up," eta But in a
mediate object
transposed.
connexion like
this,
where
offices in
SiascovU can only
mean
official service;
the Church are in question, and this does not belong to
the saints in general
Olshausen supposes the two latter members to be a subdivision of the first, thus " for the perfecting of the saints, namely, on the one hand, of those who are endowed with gifts of teaching for the fulfilment of their office ; and, on the other hand, as regards the bearers, for the building up of the Church." But it is impossible to read into the words this distinction, "on the one hand," "on the other hand"; and the oUoSofirj tov o-cufuiTos describes the function of teachers rather than of hearers. Besides, we cannot suppose the teachers themselves to be included among those who are the objects of the functions enumerated in ver. 1 1.
:
The word KaraprurfUt does not occur elsewhere in the N.T. Galen uses of setting a dislocated joint The verb Karaprl^w by its etymology means to restore or bring to the condition dprios, and is used Matt v. 21 of " mending " nets ; in Heb. zL 3 of the (< framing " of the world. It occurs Gal. vi. 1 in the figurative sense, " restore such one." In Luke vi 40 the sense is as here, "to perfect," Kan/iprurfUros was term dw 6 fc&dVcoAof o&roO. Also in 2 Cor. ariii. II, arair{fe<r0e. Comp. ib. 9, ttJf s/imt rardfrwtr. Karaprurfi&t is the completed result of Kardprurts,
it
ohcoBofirpr
tov o-w/xaro?.
The
had
confusion of metaphors
is
excused
by the
fact that oucooo/m}
primary meaning;
for the apostle ceased to suggest its c x Cor. viiL 10; 1 Thess. v. n, and below,
SfO
ter. 1 6.

The
fact that
[IV. 18
both
01*080/177
and
<rv>pa
rov Xpurrov have a
distinct metaphorical sense accounts for the confusion, but does
net prove it non-existent The ancients were less exacting in aueh matters th&n the moderns; even Cicero has some strange examples. See on iii. 18.
to bear this in mind when attempts are made elsefar the figure involved in some word IS. p4)(pt KaTairqfft|Mi' 01 mftrrcs els tty 4rori)Ta ttjs ituttcms xal T^f <wywS<th>s tou uloo tow 6cou cis Aropa rAdo?, els pfrpor iJXutiag " Till we all (we as a whole) attain iv8 wXafprfparo* tou Xpurrou. to the oneness of the faith, and of the thorough knowledge of the San of God, to a full-grown man, to the measure of the stature .(or 11 Maturity) of the fulness of Christ p*xP l is without av because the result is not uncertain, ol n-aire?, " we, the whole body or us," aamdy, all believers, not all men (as Jerome), which is against the preceding context (tf dyfov). The oneness of the faith is opposed to the XvoWi{6*/tci'oi leal Ttpc^cp6*ficvo4, K.T.A., ver. 14. " Contrarius unitati est omnis ventus," BengeL IvLyvwa^ is not merely explanatory of irarns, which is indeed a condition of it, but a distinct nation, rov vlov rov 0cov belongs to both substantives. The Son of God is the specific object of Christian faith as well as knowledge. cfe iy&pa r&cior, a perfect, mature man, to which the following nprwc 18 opposed. Comp. Polyb. p. 523, Âirwrarrc* ok iratoup vffwt^f xpycracrfal np QiXurmgi, 81a re tt/v ijAuclav xat ttjv airetpiav rov ph *. <Zpov t cXctov av&pa. The singular is used because it refers to the Church as a whole ; it corresponds to the cfe Kaivos
U is useful
where to press too
" pwwo* It is doubtful whether we are to take rjXiKta as " age &t "stature"; not only ykuda itself but pcrpov 17 Was occurs in both senses, die ripeness of full age, and the measure of stature. Ill the N.T. rfkucloL has the meaning "stature" in Luke xix. 3;
.
Âuclp
fUKpb*
fa and "age"
in
John
ix.
21,
tjkiKiav
*xl -
" Mature age " is the most common signification in Greek writers, whereas the adjective 7X1*6? most frequently refers to magnitude. would appear, therefore, that to a Greek reader it is only the connexion in which it stands that would decide. There is nothing here to decide for "stature"; p.crpov, indeed, might at first sight teem to favour this, but we have in Philostratus, Vit. Soph. p. 543, ro pMTfiov rife ijAticfas rafc fUv aAAcu? iirtomqpjais yrjputs apxti* On the other hand, what the context refers to is the idea of * maturity"; if "stature" were unambiguously expressed, it could #nly be understood as a mark of maturity ; any comparison with physical magnitude would be out of the question. See on Lk. ii. 52. " Of the fulness of Christ," i>. to which the fulness of Christ
belongs.
Some
expositors take rr\jjp&p.a here as
if
used by a Hebraism
IV. 14]
121
for vir\rjp<ofivo<: = perfect, complete, either agreeing with Xpurrov

(imrXrjpiiifievov)
or with
i/XtKia? (irorA,i7pficOT7s),
1
thus interpreting
measure of the perfect (mature) Christ," or " of the perfect stature of Christ, which again may be explained as that which Christ produces. But this supposition is inadmissible. We cannot separate to irX^payta rov Xpurrov. Or, again, to vkrjpvua rov Xpurrov is understood to mean, " what is filled by Christ," i.e. the Church, which is so called in i. 23. But apart from the wrong sense thus given to irXijpo/ia, there is a wide difference between predicating to v\. of the Church, and using the term as synonymous with toeAiprta. We may ask, too, How can we all
either " the
'
arrive at the maturity of the

is
that which
Church? A better interpretation makes to wA. tov Xp. = the fulness of Christy i.e.
the maturity is that to which belongs the full possession of the of Christ. Oltramare objects that this interpretation rests on an erroneous view of the sense of irXrjpmfia rov Xp. which does not mean the full possession of Christ, nor the full gracious presence of Christ Moreover, it makes fiirpov superfluous, and makes the whole clause a mere repetition of cfc avSpa WAaor. With his view of *-A.7;p/Aa= perfection (see L 23), there is a distinct advance, " to the measure of the stature (i.e. to the height) of the perfection of Christ" This is also RiickerVs view. It is questioned whether St Paul here conceives this ideal as one to be realised in the present life or only in the future. Amongst the ancients, Chrysostom, Theoph., Oecum., Jerome, took the former view, Theodoret the latter. It would probably be an error to suppose that the apostle meant definitely either one or the other. He speaks of an ideal which may be approximated to. But
gifts
though it may not be perfectly attainable it must be aimed at, and this supposes that its attainment is not to be represented as impossible. See Dale, Lect zv. p. 283.
14. Ira fii)iclTi 3|mk n^mot, KXuoWilopcpoi ical ircpf+cpopcrot BiScuricaXias. vairl "That we may be no longer Tijs children tossed and borne to and fro by every wind of teaching."
Mpq
This does not depend on ver.
13, for
one does not become a mature
Ver. 12 states the final goal of the work of the teachers ; ver. 13, that which must take place in the meantime in order to the attainment of that end. kAvoWiIo/acvoc from kAvoW, a billow or surge, may mean either tossed by the waves or tossed like waves, as in Josephus, Ant. ix. 11. 3, 6 hypos rapcurHere, as fotfup is most naturally o-bftcvo? k<u *AvoWio/icvos. connected with it as well as with ircpi^., the latter seems best and this corresponds with Jas. i. 8, oWptvo'/xcvos Joucc jcAv&Wi OaXdoyrrp fotfutofUvy. similar figure occurs in Jude 12, v<f>&ai &w&poi xnrb bviputav wapa^tpo/uyoi 1 tL Heb. xiii. 9, &8a;pus rour&ait
in order to grow.
man
firf
*apa^pca0c
"
22
[IV. 14
&vifjLQ does not refer to " emptiness " nor to "impulsive power, but rather is chosen as suitable to the idea of changeableness. So Theophylact : rjj rpoirfi ifificviov teal avcfiov? fcaAc<rc ras 8iaopovs SuWkoAw. The article before && does not "give definitive prominence to the teaching " (Eadie), but marks teaching in the abstract tv -rg itupi9- twv &vQpuin>v. "Through the sleight of men,* #cv/?cia, from Kvpos, is properly " dice-playing," and hence " trickery,
Soden prefers to take it as expressing conduct void of seriousness ; these persons play with die conscience and the But this is not the ordinary sense soul's health of the Christians. of the word. iv is instrumental, the words expressing the means by which the vtpi<f>. k.t.A. is attained. There is no objection to this on the ground that it would thus be pleonastic after $v frl/up (E1L), since tv rjj *. is not connected with n-cpi^cpo/xcvot, but with the whole clause. Ellicott himself says the preposition
deceit"
"appears rather to denote the element, the evil atmosphere as it were, in which the varying currents of doctrine exert their force." "Element" is itself figurative, and requires explanation; and if " evil atmosphere," etc., is intended as an explanation, it is clear that no such idea is implied in the Greek, nor would it be at all in St Paul's way to carry out the figure in such detail, or to expect the reader to compare KvfaL* to the atmosphere ; see on v. 5.
iv vavovpyLq, irpta t$\v pcfo&ciai' ttjs irXdnjs.
"By
craftiness,
tending to the scheming of error." vavovpyos and wavovpyta are used in the Sept generally, if not invariably, in a good or an indifferent sense, "prudent," Prov. xiii. 1 ; "prudence," Prov. L 4, viii 5; "shrewdness," Ecclus. xxi. 12; Josh. ix, 4 (though this Polybius also latter may be thought an instance of a bad sense). uses iravovpyos in the sense of 8cu><fc, " clever, shrewd." In classical writers the words have almost invariably a bad sense, the substantive meaning " knavery, unscrupulous conduct" In the N.T. the substantive occurs five times, always in a bad sense (Luke xx 23; 1 Cor. iii. 19; 2 Cor. iv. 2, xi. 3, and here); the adjective once, 2 Cor. xii. 1 6, in the sense " crafty." fudoStCa is found only here and ch. vi 11. The verb fi$o8v<a is used, however, by Polybius, Diodorus, and the Sept.,
and means to deal
craftily (cf. 2
Sam.
xix. 27,
where Mephibosheth
says of Ziba, p.tQw&wrv iv ra> Sov'Aa> crov) ; the substantive fitOo&os, from which it is derived, being used by later authors in the meaning " cunning device." irkdirq has its usual meaning " error," not " seduction " (a meaning which it never has, not even in 2 Thess. In ii. n), and the genitive is subjective, thus personifying error. the Revised Version irpos is taken as = according to, "after the This wiles of error," a comma being placed after iravovpy^.
seems to leave the
latter
word too
isolated.
Moreover,
this
sense
IV. 16]
1 23
of irpds, though appropriate after verbs of action, being founded on the idea of "looking to," or the like, does not agree with the participles k\v8. and ircpi^. Codex adds after vXarifc tot dtafiokov, an addition suggested probably by vi. 11. " But cherishing truth in love." 15. dXTj0cooKTs Be cV dydlirt). RV. has "speaking truth in love," only differing from AV. by the omission of the article before "truth," but with "dealing Meyer insists that AXrjOevtiv always means truly " in the margin. "to speak the truth." But the verb cannot be separated from aXrjOtla. Verbs in -even express the doing of the action which is signified by the corresponding substantive in -eta. Of this we have two examples in ver. 14, #cv/?cto, which is the action of *v/?cvciv, fu6o6eia of fudoSevttv. Comp. KoAaxcia, koAokcvw ; fipa/fcuu, dpurrcvet), dyyapcvw with their substantives in -eta, and many Now dAêta is not limited to spoken truth, least of all others. In this Epistle observe iv. 24, biKauxrvvr) teal 6<n6in the N.T. ryjTi tt}<; dAi^cta?, also iv. 2 1 and v. 9 ; and compare the expressions " walking in truth," " the way of truth," " not obeying the Here, where the truth, but obeying unrighteousness, ASucia." warning is not to the false teachers, but to those who were in danger of being misled like children by then), "speaking truth" appears out of place. As to the connexion of cv aydirr}, it seems most natural to join it with dAiyflcvoircs, not only because otherwise the latter word would be harshly isolated, but because the " growth " is so fully denned by the following words. If, indeed, love were not mentioned, as it is, at the end of ver. 16, there might be more reason to adopt the connexion with av$y<rwiiev9 on the ground that considering the frequent references to it, as in iv. 2, iil 18, 19, it was not likely to have been omitted in speaking of growth. Connected with aXrjOcveiv, cV dydtnj is not a limitation, but a general characteristic of the Christian walk; "Not breaking up, but cementing brotherly love by walking in Probably, however, the apostle intended cv truth" (Alford). dyebrp to be connected both with the preceding and the following his ideas progressing from SXrjOtU to dyam/, and thence to
avipris.
a6{âfiK cts
aMv t& irdvra 8s

in all things,
itrnv ^ KcâX^, Xpurrds.

is
" May
grow up unto
the Head, even Christ" avpro>/Acv is not transitive as in 1 Cor. iii. 6 ; 2 Cor. ix. 10, eta, and in the older classical writers and the Septuagint, but intransitive as in later Greek writers and Matt vL 28; Luke L 80, ii. 40, and elsewhere ; cf. here also iL 21. ci afrdv. Meyer understands this to mean "in relation to Him," with the explanation that Christ is the head of the body, the growth of whose members is therefore in constant relation to Him as determining and regulating it. The commentary on ci?
Him
who
124
[IV. 15
avrov is, he says, given by 1( oil, jc.t.X., the one expressing the ascending, the other the descending direction of the relation of the growth to the head, He being thus the goal and the source of the development of the life of the Church. However correct this explanation may be in itself, it can hardly be extracted from the interpretation of cfe as " in relation to," which is vague and
feeble.
Nor does
it
even appear that

. .
cfe
avrov admits of such a
rendering at all
Such expressions as Is o " in regard to which," ." eta, are not parallel cfe TauTo"quod attinet ad Interpreted according to these analogies, the words would only mean " with respect to Him, that we should grow," and the order would be cfe avrov av Meyer has adopted this view from his reluctance to admit any interpretation which does not agree with the figure of the head But that figure is not suggested until after this. We have first the Church as itself becoming avyp rc*A*to$, then this figure is departed from, and the readers individually are
represented as possible npruM. The subjects of avô-o/icv, then, are not yet conceived as members of a body, but as separate persons. But as soon as the pronoun introduces Christ, the idea that He is the head suggests itself, and leads to the further
development in ver. We can hardly

KaTaVT7)(T<l>fJLV
16.
fail
to
see in av
cfe
cfe
cfe
oVS/Hl
TcXciOV,
/ACrpoV
avrov a variation of TfXtKULf TOV wA. TOV
"Unto Him." This would seem to mean at once "unto as a standard," and "so as to become incorporated with Him"; not that cfe avrov by itself could combine both meanings, but that the thought of the apostle is passing on to the idea contained in the words that follow. He begins with the idea of children growing up to a certain standard of maturity, and with the word avrov passes by a rapid transition to a deeper view of the relation of this growth to Christ the Head. Harless, to escape the difficulty of av cfe avrov, connects the latter words with cV aydwy, " in love to Him." The order of the words is certainly not decisive against this view ; instances of such a hyperbaton are sufficiently frequent, but there seems no reason for it here, and it would make the introduction of " Who is the Head" very abrupt
Xp.
Him
Ta xraVra, the ordinary accusative of definition, "in all the parts of our growth." Xpurro*?. This use of the nominative in apposition with the relative, where we might have expected the accusative Xptorov, is a Compare Plato, Apol. p. 41 A, cvpiprci usual Greek construction. rov? &9 akrjOC)? Sucaora?, oiircp ko.1 Xcyovrai cVci &#cactv Miva>? re Kal 'PaSd/tavflos *cat Ala/cos. The Received Text has 6 Xpurro?, with The article is wanting in K B C, Bas. L, Chrys. Theod. Cyit
DGK
IV. 16]
DEPENDENCE ON THE HEAD

ropa
avKappoXoYotfpcKoy
fitly
ical
125
aruppipallpcKor.
1(
16. 4$ ot trap tA
" From
whom
the whole body
framed and put together."
ov goes with avfi/<rtv iroictrau The present participles indicate On awappu cf. ii. 21. The use that the process is still going on. of the word there forbids the supposition that the derivation from op/tot, a joint, was before the mind of the writer. (rvpfiifidtu is used by classical writers in the sense of bringing together, either persons figuratively (especially by way of reconciliation) or things. Compare CoL ii. 2, avp.fi. cV dyairfl. As to the difference between the two verbs here, Bengel says " crwapp. pertinet ad to regulare, ut partes omnes in situ suo et relatione mutua recte aptentur, So Alford <rvp.fi. notat simul firmitudinem et consolidationem." and Eadie. Ellicott thinks the more exact view is that avpfi. refers to the aggregation, <rwappm to the interadaptation of the component parts. This would seem to require that avpfi., as the condition of <rwappL., should precede. Perhaps it might be more correct to say that ovyappu corresponds to the figure o&pa, the apostle then, in the consciousness that he is speaking of persons, adding <rvfiJ3t.fi. (so Harless and, substantially, Meyer). In the parallel, CoL ii. 19, we have cmxopvjyovpAvov *<u <rvpfitfia(6p*vov. In that Epistle the main theme is " the vital connexion with the Head ; in the Ephesians, the unity in diversity among the memHence the substitution here of awapp. for bers " (Lightfoot). hnxop. But the idea involved in the latter is here expressed in the corresponding substantive. Bid wdoi)s A+tjs -rijs Imxopvyl**"Through every contact with the supply." The parallel in CoL ii 19 seems to decide that these words are to be connected with the participles. has some difficulty. It has been given the meaning &<f>ij "joint," "sensation," "contact" If by "joint" is understood those parts of two connected limbs which are close to the touching surfaces (which is no doubt the common use of the word), then &f>rj cannot be so understood ; it means "touching" or "contact," and can no more mean " joint " in this sense than these English words can have that meaning. And what would be the meaning of " every joint of supply " ? Eadie answers " Every joint whose
:
function
it is
to afford such aid"
But
this is
not the function of
a joint, and this notion of the supply being through joints would be a very strange one and strangely expressed Besides, it would not be consistent with the fact that it is from Christ that the cmxoprjyCa proceeds. Theodoret takes tyrj to mean "sense" or "sensation."
rrpr aurOrfciv irpoo-rjyopcwrw, iirtibrj teal avrq fita twv h-otc aurityrcw, that is, "the apostle calls sensation 'touch,' because this is one of the five senses, and he names the whole from the part" Chrysostom is more obscure, and seems to make, not fafnjs alone, but dîfc ttJ? hri^âUrOâ-tw; for when he proceeds^ to
(tyj/K
126

:
[IV. 16
expound, he says to irvevfia cjccivo to hn\oprfyovfLvov rois fjJXtcrtv &wo ttJs K<f>a\.f}s Ikootov /4cA.ov? airrofievov ovrcas ivepyei. Theodoret's interpretation is adopted by Meyer, " every feeling in which the supply (namely, that which is given by Christ) is perceived." But although the singular a<f>rj, which sometimes means the sense of touch, might naturally be used to signify "feeling" in general yet we cannot separate this passage from that in CoL where we have the plural; and, as Lightfoot observes, until more cogent examples are forthcoming, "we are justified in saying that aL could no more be used for at aio-ftprci?, than in English ' the touches ' could be taken as a synonym for the senses.' " Meyer, indeed, takes the word there as " the feelings, sensations " ; but there is no evidence that a<fxu could have this meaning either. Besides, " the conjunction of such incongruous things as rwv <ty&v koX o-uvSccr/Aoiv, under the vinculum of the same article and preposition, would be unnatural." It remains that we take wfrf in the sense of " contact," which suits both this passage and that in CoL Lightfoot, on CoL ii. 19, gives several passages from Galen and Aristotle in illustration of this signification. Here we need only notice the distinction which Aristotle makes between <rvf<f>v<Ti<: and etyi;, the latter signifying only " contact," the former " cohesion." 17 &4*rj TTJ* cirixopTyta?, then, is the touching of, *>. contact with, the aurccr&u ti/s hnx. would mean " to take hold of, or get supply, in touch with," the hnx. ; hence &d irrfaq? dîfc t^s bn% may well mean " through each part being in touch with the ministration." So Oecumenius: 17 &tt6 tov X/hotou kcltlovo-cl vvcv/iartfc^ Suva/it? cVos foaorou fitXovs a&rov airroficvrj. Oltramare understands the gen. as gen. auctoris = * nfc eViô/). T17? d^fa ijq iTrcxppyrn* "par toute sorte de jointures provenant de sa largesse." brixopryyta occurs again Phil. i. 19 ; it is found nowhere else except in ecclesiastical writers. But the verb bnxopyy (which occurs five times in the N.T.) is also found, though rarely, in later Greek writers. Kar* cWpyctaf cV u.Tpu ivbs CKdorou jilpous.
'
L P, Arm., Theodoret, etc ; but C, fijpovt is the reading of X B Vulg. Syr. Boh., Chrys. have fUXovs. This is so naturally suggested by the figure of <rv/m that we can hardly doubt that it came in either by a natural mistake or as an intentional emendation. But pdpovs is really much more suitable, as more general
" According to the proportionate working of each several part." cWpycia does not mean " power," but " acting power," " activity," " working," so that the interpretation of kot Ivipytuav as adverbial = " powerfully," is excluded As to the connexion of the following words, cV /xcrpo) may be taken either with Kar cvcpy. or as governThe latter is the view adopted by many coming <vos ck. p.ip. mentators, with so little hesitation that they do not mention the
DGK
IV, 17]
other.
DEPENDENCE ON THE HEAD
1 27
Thus Eadie and Ellicott render " according to energy in the measure of each individual part." This is not very lucid, and Ellicott therefore explains "in the measure of (sc. commensurate with)/' Alford's rendering is similar. If this is understood to mean "the energy which is distributed to every part," eta, as it apparently must be, we miss some word which should suggest the idea of distribution, which cV certainly does not Moreover, cWpycta, from its signification, requires to be followed by some defining word, and elsewhere in the N.T. always is so. It is preferable, therefore, to join cv /xcVpy closely with cVcpycta, which it qualifies, and which is then defined by the genitive following. It is as if the writer had been about to say *ar eVe/ry. iv6* Ik. 9 and then recalling the thought of ver. 7 inserted cv perpy. If this view (which is BengePs) is correct, the reason assigned by Meyer for connecting these words with av(. iroicum instead of with the participles falls to the ground, viz. that pcrpu suits the idea of growth better than that of joining together. The RV. appears to agree with the view here taken. tV au$T)<riK tou crrfpiTos itoicitcu. " Carries on the growth of the body." In Col. 1L 19 we have ava rtfv avfiprtv; here the active participation of the body as a living organism in promoting its own growth is brought out, and this especially in order to introduce cV &ydvjf. The middle iroicirai is not " intensive," but
appropriately used of the body promoting its own growth ; voui would imply that <rwpa and o-wfuiro? had a different reference. o-wparos is used instead of cavrov, no doubt because of the remoteness of crwpa, as well as because cavrov was required presently.
is
eV dyrfin). On the mixture of metaphors not suitable to the figure of a body, but is suggested by the idea of the thing signified to which the figure in oU. is so familiarly applied. It would be awkward to separate cV dyairfl from owe. and join it with avipriv irotcirai, as Meyer does on account of the correspondence with ver. 15. Through the work of the several parts the building up of the whole is accomplished by means of love. Observe that it is the growth of the whole that is dwelt on, not that of the individual parts. 17-24. Admonition, that knowing how great the blessings of which they have been made partakers, they should fashion their lives accordingly, putting off all that belongs to their old life, and putting
cf.
Compare Luke iii. 19. <U oUoftopV caurou

ver. 12.
oucooo/Aij is
on
the
new man.
Resumes from w.
rrjs trapou'co-caw -rd
17. Totrro 06V \cy ko1 fiaprJpofioi eV Kupiw. As Theodoret observes : irdXiv dvc\a/?c 1-3.
npooipiov.
ovV, as often, has simply this resumptive force, and does not indicate any inference from what precedes ; for the exhortation begun w. 1*3 was interrupted, and the d&'a* vcpcvarcu' of
128
[IV. 17
ver. z is repeated in the negative form in ver. 1 7. The tovto looks forward. papTvpo/uu, " I protest, conjure " = hia/iaprvpofiai. Poly h. p. 1 403, <rw$pafJb6vTQ)v rtov cyxcopiW #ccu pLaprvpofilvoyv rov? avSpas eiravayeiv hrl rqv &px?i v' Thucydides, viii. 53, fiaprvpofilviav *al iTridtiaôvruv The notion of exhortation and precept is involved firf icarayctv. in this and Xrya> by the nature of the following context, /upcen ircpur., as in the passage of Thucydides, so that there is no ellipsis
Of
fciv.
br Kvpup. Not either "per Dominum" or "calling the Lord ftdprvpa tov Kvpiov koAw, Chrys. Theodoret, eta to witness." Some expositors have defended this on the ground that N.T. writers, following the Hebrew idiom, wrote 6>o<rai h> nvt ; but it by no means follows that tv rtvi without o/xdo-at could be used in this sense any more than jcara Aids could be used without oftoo-at instead of vpb? Afe. EUicott says: "As usual, defining the element or sphere in which the declaration is made " ; and so Eadie and Alford. This Meyer is a little clearer: "Paul does not is not explanation. speak in his own individuality, but Christ is the element in which
his thought
and
will
move."
cW h
rtvi is
classical
phrase
expressing complete dependence on a person. Soph. Oed. Col. cj> Ki/i$a: Oed. Tyr. 314, Iv arol yap coytev: 247, hr v/uv Eurip. Ale. 277, lv <roi 8* co-p.lv kcu gqv khI ftrj. Compare Acts xvii. 28, Iv avrw a>/i*v koX Kivovfi$a kol l<rp,v. In the N.T., indeed, the expression acquires a new significance from the idea of fellowship and union with Christ and with God. Whatever the believer does, is done with a sense of dependence on Him arid union with Him. For example, " speaking the truth " " marrying n (1 Cor. vii. 39). Here, where an apostolic precept is concerned, it is implied that the apostle speaks with authority. But the expression would hardly have been suitable had he not been addressing those who, like himself, had fellowship with the Lord. This interpretation is so far from being " jejune," that it implies a personal and spiritual relation which is put out of sight by the impersonal figure of an
"element" p)K&i ApAs
ircpiiraTctr Kaft&s
infinitive present
ical tA eOnrj ircpiiraTcu For the compare the passages above cited from Thucyd.
M Demosth.
and Polyb.
dva/ftuVctv,
Also Acts xxi. 2, \eywv p.rj irpirfivtv : xxi. 4, <\tyov where the imperative would be used in oratio directa. xxvii. 7, Aiyci> vavras cievai. Aesch. Agam. 898, kiyw
ilii
kot avSpa,
cdv, crifoiv
Ifil.
Text Rec adds \<*t& before iOrrj, with K4 The word is wanting in g ABD*G, Vulg. Boh.
Dte K
L, Syr., Chrys. etc.
IV. 18]
FORMER STATE OF THE GENTILES
1 29
The Xot-rrd is more likely to have been added in error than omitted. Assuming that it is not genuine, this is an instance of St Paul's habitual regard for the feelings of his readers. It suggests that they are no longer to be classed with the Z&vrj. They were lOrq only fr o-aptci, but were members of the true commonwealth
of Israel
Although in the O.T. idols are eV fLaTai6rf)Ti toG poo* acTur. frequently called \idrma (compare Acts xiv. 15), the substantive is not to be limited to idolatry, to which there is no special reference here. It is the falseness and emptiness of their thoughts that are in question (cf. Rom. L 2 1, ipaTauaOrjo-av iv tow SiaAoyur/Aoi? avTtov). Nor, again, are we, with Grotius, to suppose any special reference to the philosophers, merely because in 1 Cor. iil 20 it is said of the Rather, it refers to baXoyio-fiol tw a-oâv that they are pAraiou the whole moral and intellectual character of heathenism ; their powers were wasted without fruit As Photius (quoted by Harless) remarks : ov to, rrjs tiXrflttas ^povovvrcs koX ttcotcvovtc? koX AiroScô/icvot AAA* aircp Kv 6 vov$ avrw pArqv Avairkdcry koX \ayto~rjTai. voxs includes both the intellectual and the practical side of reason, except where there is some ground for giving prominence to one or the other in particular. Here we have both sides, ivKorwfUvot referring to the intellectual, amjWoTpuofjLcvoi to the practical. 18* {ojcoTttiilroi Tjj Siacoia orre*, din)XXoTpii|i^yoi Ttjs [ri)f toG etou.
toKOTupipoi
is
The former appears

ovres
is
the form in ICAB, while to be the more classical.
DGKLP have
toivrtapAnu
with the preceding than with the be taken together, this would have to be regarded as assigning the ground of Io~kot. But the darkness was not the effect of the alienation, which, on the contrary, was the result of the ayvoia. The position of oWc? is not against this, Meyer illustrates from since Io-kot. rp 8. express a single notion. v an(^ Xen. Ages, xi. 10, irpaoraro? Herod, i. 35, ov Ka$ap6s x 'Pu t <i'A<us j&v. The two participles thus stand in an emphatic position at the beginning, and this emphasis is lost by joining oVw with the following. The change of gender from I0vr\ to Io-kotu/acwh 6Wc? corresponds to a change from the class to the person. icrKortofjLvoi is opposed to ircôirco-ficVoi (i. 1 8). We have the
better
joined
following.
If oKrcs &in)W.
>
same expression Rom. i. 21, icrKori<rOrf 17 do-wcros aviw KapSta, and a remarkable parallel in Josephus, ttjv Stdvoiav iwcrKOTurfitvovs, Ant. ix 4. 3. Aiayoia strictly means the understanding, but is not so limited in the N.T. Compare Col. i. 21, ixOpov? rfi Siavola: rrjv tlkucpivfj Sidvoiav. 2 Pet iii. 1, Suycipo* Here, however, the connexion decides for the meaning "understanding." On
. .
dmyAA. 9
cf.
ii.
12.
X30
rrjs

i.e.
[IV. 18
twfp tov 0cou. Explained by Theodoret as ri}s iv apery But <m; as = the life approved by God, or "godly life/* in N.T. does not mean "course of life," /Smw, but true life as opposed to $a.varo<:. In Gal. v. 25 we have it expressly disn tinguished from " course Of conduct ; i faptv Trvtvfiart, wvcvpari Kal crroix)fjLcv. Moreover, amjXXoTpaaficyot implies separation from something reaL Erasmus' explanation of the genitive as one of apposition, "vera vita qui est Deus," is untenable. The analogy of 1) ipyt>7) tov Gkov, Phil. iv. 7 ; av&qcris tov eov, Col. ii. 19, suggests that the words mean " the life which proceeds from God " "tota vita spiritualis quae in hoc seculo per fidem et justitiam inchoatur et in futura beatitudine perficitur, quae tota peculiariter vita Dei est, quatenus a Deo per gratiam datur," Estius. But something deeper than this is surely intended by the genitive, which naturally conveys the idea of a character or quality. It is the life " qua Deus vivit in suis," Beza (who, however, wrongly adds to this " quamque praecipit et approbat "). Somewhat " Vita spiritualis accenditur in credentibus ex similarly Bengel ipsa Dei vita." Harless, indeed, argues that the life of regeneration is not here referred to, since what is in question is not the opposition of the heathen to Christianity, but to God ; so that o>^ r. 0cov is to be compared to John L 3, where the Aayo? is said to be (from the beginning) the fay and </>s of the world, and thus there was an original fellowship of man with God. So in part many expositors, regarding the perfect participles as indicating "gentes ante defectionem suam a fide patrum, imo potius ante lapsum Adami, fuisse participes lucis et vitac? Bengel. But St Paul is here speaking of the contemporary heathen in contrast to those who had become Christians (ver. 17) ; and it is hard to think that if he meant to refer to this original divine life in man, he would not have expressed himself more fully and precisely. The idea is one which he nowhere states explicitly, and it is by no means involved of necessity in the tense of the participles, which is sufficiently explained as expressing a state. Indeed, the aorist dm;XXorpicD^cnrc$ would more suitably suggest the idea of a time when they were not SO ; cf. I Pet. iL IO, 01 ovk rj\7)fxtvoi yvv 8k cAo^citc?. And how can we think the Gentiles as at a prehistoric time tq oWofy not
Ofo
ia-KorwfUyoi ?
ouaar cr outoi? Sid rty -nwpwriv tv)* ROpStas cause of their alienation from the Divine life is their ignorance, and this again results from their hardness of heart Most expositors regard Sid ... Sid as co-ordinate, some connecting both clauses with amjXX. only (Origen, Alford, Eadie, Ellicott), others with both participles (Bengel, Harless, Olsh. De Wette). Bengel, followed by Olsh. and De Wette, refers Sid rJ^ ayv. to iatc. and Sid t^v 7r. to amfXX. But this is rather too artificial
Sid
t$|k ftyKOiar r^\v
aMtai
The
IV. 19]
for a letter.
I31
Nor does it yield a satisfactory sense ; for dyvoia is not De Wette evades this by the cause of the darkness, but its effect. saying that ayvoia refers to speculative knowledge, io-Kvr. to practical. But there is no sufficient ground for this. The substantive ayvoia does not elsewhere occur in St Paul's Epistles (it is in his speech, Acts xvii. 30, "the times of this ignorance"; and in 1 Pet i. 14, besides Acts iii. 17); but the verb is of frequent occurrence, and always of ignorance only, not of the absence of a higher faculty of knowledge. Such ignorance was not inaccessible to light, as is shown by the instances of the converted Gentiles ; but so far as it was due to the hardness of their hearts, it was culpable. It is only by the subordination of the latter clause to the former that the use of rrjv ovcrav hr avroU instead of the simple avrQyv finds a satisfactory explanation. Compare Rom. L 18-33. Ellicott, following Harless, explains these words as pointing out the indwelling deep-seated nature of the aypota, and forming a sort of parallelism to tt/s KapoVa? afow, and so, as Harless adds, opposed to mere external occasions. But there is nothing of this The ignorance in the context, nor in the words oZcav cv avroU. must be in them ; and, unless we take the connexion as above (with Meyer), the words express nothing more than av7w. TTupaxTis is " hardness," not " blindness," as most of the ancient Indeed, it is so explained also by Suidas and versions interpret Hesychius, as if derived from an adjective iroipos, " blind " ; which seems, however, to be only an invention of the grammarians (perhaps from confusion with mjpfc, with which it is often confounded by copyists). It is really derived (through irwpow) from wuy>o5, which originally meant " tufa," and then " callus," a
hardening of the skin. (It is also used by medical writers of the " callus " formed at the end of fractured bones, and of " chalkstones " in the joints.) Hence, from the insensibility of
callosity or
insensible.
tijv
the parts covered with hard skin, the verb means to make dull or It is thus correctly explained by Theodoret, inopwnv
icr\a.rrfv
yap at r<j> <rw/iari cyywo/icvai Cicero frequently uses "callum " in a similar figurative sense, e.g. " ipse labor quasi callum quoddam obducit dolori," Tusc. Disp. ii. 1 5. 19. oTTircs, " quippe qui," " being persons who." diri)Vyi)ic4Tcs, " being past feeling," a word appropriate to the figure in irayxixrtc it properly means to give over feeling pain, and is used by Thucydides with an accusative of the thing, AiraAyoiWcs ra SSca, " to be without feeling." The AV. ii. 61 ; hence it comes to mean 41 past feeling" expresses the sense very accurately. Polybius, however, has the expression a7raXyoviTcs raU eXirto-t, and, indeed, elsewhere uses the verb in the sense "giving up," as Hesychius This may be "giving up in interprets, /upclrt 0cXoktcc tovciv.
avaXyTf<rCav Xryci*
#cai
irupcixrci? ovSe/xtav at<rOrf<nv
1\ov<ti.
132
[IV. 10
despair," as in L 58 of the Romans and Carthaginians, Kafivovrs 17 $1/ rots ttovok 81a ttjv (rw\iav t>v Kivhvvtav, cfe tcXos dirrjkyovv.
Hence some commentators have adopted " desperantes " here, which is the rendering of the Vulgate. Bengel cites from Cicero (Epp. ad /ami/, ii. 16) what looks like a paraphrase of the word: "diuturna desperatione serum obduruisse animum ad dolorem novum." " Dolor, says Bengel, "urgetad medicinam dolore autem amisso, non modo spes sed etiam studium et cogitatio reruns bonarum amittitur, ut homo sit excors, effrons, exspes." Theophylact gives a similar interpretation icarcpppfafiqfforc?, teal /xq 0&ovrc? Kafiiv irpbs ttjv tvpwtv rov Ka\ov teal AyaXyr/nas o'tarc^cprcs. The reading of D G is drnjAirucorcs (d<- G); but evidence for the textual reading is predominant, and, moreover, dmpAiriKorcc would " give a very poor sense. Jerome appears to regard " desperantes of the old Latin as an incorrect rendering of amjXvucm*, for which he suggests " indolentes sive indolorios." But he did not alter the text of the translation. Probably the other versions which express the same meaning had not a different reading ; and, on the other hand, the reading of D G may have arisen either from
: : y
the influence of the versions or as a gloss. fouToiSs. What is ascribed in Rom. L 24 to God is ascribed here to themselves, in accordance with the hortatory purpose of the present passage, so as to fix attention on the part which they themselves had in the result
daeXy^s and daAyeia were used by earlier writers (Plato, Dem.) in the sense of " insolent, insolence, outrageous " Later writers apply them in the sense " lasciviousness." The substantive has that meaning in 2 Cor. xil 21; GaL v. 19; 2 Pet ii. 7, 18; Rom. xiii. 13. In Mark vii. 22 ; Jude 4; 1 Pet iv. 3 ; 2 Pet ii. 2, the meaning is less clearly defined. In the LXX it occurs only Wisd. xiv. 22 and 2 Mace ii. 26. The derivation is probably from orc'Xyw, a form of O&yu. els ipyaalav dxaOapaias ird<rr)$. Ipyaxria suggests the idea that they made a business of &Ka$apa-(a. So Chrysostom ov irapairccrdi>f cs, <f>rj<riv t yjiaprov, &XX tipya&VTO aura ra Sctva, teal ftcAc'r^ rw TrpdyjjuiTi UixprivTo. It is not, however, to be understood of literal trading in impurity, which could not be asserted with such generality of the Gentiles. Compare Luke xii. 58, iv rjj 6&S 80s ipyaaiav, "give diligence " see note ad lac.
Isaeus,
:
7rAcovc#a originally meant (like irAeov/Kn;*, iv irXcopcfif. vXiovcKTflv) only advantage over another, for example, superiority in battle, hence it passed to the idea of unfair advantage, and then
to
that of the desire to take unfair advantage, " covetousness."
The verb occurs five times in 2 Cor. in the of." The substantive irteoviKTrp is found
1
sense " take advantage

(besides Eph.
v. 5) in
Cor.
v. io, 11,
vi
16.
irXcovcfta occurs in all ten times in
N.T.
IV. 19]
33
In Luke xii. 15 it is clearly "covetousness," and so in 2 Cor. ix. 5 ; 1 Thess. ii. 5. But all three words are so frequently associated with words relating to sins of the flesh, that many expositors, ancient and modern, have assigned to them some such special Thus irAewcicnys, 1 Cor. v. 10, 11; vAcorclta, Col. signification.
irAcovc^tav,
OKaBapaiav, vdOos, iiriOvfuav Kaicqv, koX tt/v ct&uXaXarpcia besides the present passage In and Eph. v. 3, waxra oKaOapaia fj v\ov(ia, cf. also V. 5. 2 Pet ii. 14, tcap&iav ytyvfJLvaa-fJihrqv w\OV(tas eôvTC?, "cOVetOUSness " does not suit the connexion as well as some more general term. But the most striking passage is 1 Thess. iv. 6, to vwppaiviv $ca\ irXeovcKTetv iv Tj> irpdypaTi rov &&\<f>ov avrov, where the verb is undoubtedly applied to adultery, viewed as an injustice And this suggests that possibly in Mark vii. to one's neighbour. 21, where the right order is kAoitcu, <oVot, funâi, irA.cove(ai, there In Rom. L 29 also, something grosser than covetis a similiar idea. In Polycarp, Phil, vi., which exists ousness seems to be intended only in the Latin, "avaritia" undoubtedly represents the original vAfOKcfta. Polycarp is lamenting the sin of Valens, and says: "moneo itaque vos ut abstineatis ab avaritia, et sitis casti et veraces," and a little after : " si quis non abstinuerit se ab avaritia, ab idololatria coinquinabitur ; et tanquam inter gentes judicabitur." In the present passage Theodoret says the word is used for d/icrpta : " llaarav Afxapriav Tokyuuxri, virip x6pov T(p Su^BappAvw #cara;ty>a>/icvot fiup ir\tovtiav yap r^v Apxrpiav lfcaAe<rc" The assoiii.
5,
iropvetav,
rjri*
ioriv
ciation with idolatry in Eph. v. 5 and CoL iii. 5 favours the same view. on Rom. L 29 has a learned note in support of
Hammond
however, he pushes too far. course it is not alleged that the word of itself had this special sense, but that it was with some degree of euphemism so applied, and in such a connexion as the present would be so understood. It is alleged, on the other side, that covetousness and impurity are named together as the two leading sins of the Gentile world that they even proceed from the same source ; that covetousness especially is idolatry, as being the worship of Mammon. Covetousness was not a peculiarly Gentile sin. The Pharisees were covetous (<t*\dpyvpoi). Our Lord warns His own disciples against fl-Acoyc&a, in the sense of covetousness, in Luke xii. 15 above referred to. And the form of the warning there shows that covetousness and impurity were not on the same level in respect of grossness. This may also be inferred from St Paul's o kAcjtiw fjLTjiciri icAcffTCTui Can we conceive him saying 6 fUH^ciW pipccrt
this signification of irXcovcîa, which,
Of
pot;(cvcrii>?
That covetousness and impurity proceed from the same source,
and
God
that " the fierce longing of the creature which has turned from to fill itself with the lower things of sense " (Trench, Syn., after
134
[IV.
SO
Lust and impurity are excesses Bengel), is psychologically false. of a purely animal and bodily passion ; covetousness is a secondary desire, seeking as an end in itself that which was originally desired only as a means. The explanation of ver. 5 by the observation that the covetous serve Mammon, not God, is due to Theodoret, who derives it from Matt vL 24. But that passage does not make it probable that the covetous man would be called an idolator without some explanation added St Paul himself speaks of persons who serve, not the Lord Christ, but their own belly (Rom. xvi. 18), and of others "whose god is their belly " ; yet he probably would not call them, without qualification, " idolaters." Indeed, other Greek commentators devised various explanations. Chrysostom, for instance, as one explanation, suggests that the covetous man treats his gold as
sacred, because he does not touch it may ask, further, why should covetousness
We
be specified with
v. 3).
impurity and
filthy
speaking as not to be even
named? (Eph.
Impure words suggest impure thoughts, words about covetousness have no tendency to suggest covetous thoughts. It is said, indeed, that the 1$ there between 6.Ka0aporCa traaa and irA.covct'a implies that the two words cannot refer to sins of the same kind ; but this argument seems to be answered by the immediately following pupo\oyia ri cvrpaircAta. In ver. 5, also, we have wopvos ^ dxala/mx
iy
In the present passage we have, not koI irk., but take this as cV u covetousness," or the like, after the strong words that have preceded, would be an incredible weakening of the charge. 20. dpcis Si ofix otfros tyw0TC rlv Xpi<rr6v. " But ye, not so did ye learn Christ" Beza, followed by Braune, places a stop after ovrws, " But not so ye. Ye have learned Christ." This, howshould expect v/Uk ever, makes the second clause too abrupt
irXtov&Trj*.
cv tt\.
To
We
to
is
be repeated, or dAAa inserted, as in Luke xxii. 26, fyms 8c oty ovrm* aXX 6 fitfcuv cv vfilv, k.t.X. Besides, the connexion with ver. 2
M
is first
impaired, " ye learned Christ with a qualification.

viz.
stated absolutely,
and then
ovx ovrm, a litotes ; cf. Deut xviii. 14. c>a0cTc, " did learn," when they became Christians. This use of pavOdvw with an The instance accus. of a person seems to be without parallel. cited by Raphelius from Xenophon, Iva aWykovs p&Oouv bwocroi cfyraK, is clearly not parallel, the object of the verb there being Hence the ancients and many moderns have taken oflô-oi, k.t.A. Xpurrov as = " doctrinam Christi," which is feeble and unsupported. Others, as Riickert and Harless, understand e/ia^crc as " learned But the key to know," viz. " what He is and what He desires." to the expression is supplied by the passages which speak of "preaching Christ," GaL L 16; 1 Cor. L 23; 2 Cor. L 19;
TV. 21]
THE NEW MAN

;
35
indeed the following verse (21) speaks of "hearing Christ was the content of the preaching, He might properly be said to be learned So PhiL iii. 10, rov yvwvcu avrov. Col. ii. 6, TrapcXaficr* rov Xp., is similar. 21. ctyc, "turn certe si,'* see on iii. 2. Here also the conjunction is unfavourable to the view that St Paul is addressing avrov with emphasis those whom he had himself instructed, placed first, " if Him, indeed, ye heard." tv avnf, not " by Him," as V., a construction not admissible with a personal author, nor "illius nomine, quod ad ilium attinet" (Bengel). But as those who believe are said to be iv Xpmj>, so here they are said to have been taught in Him, ue. as in fellowship with Him. There is a progress, as Meyer observes, from the first announcement of the gospel (TjKov<raT) to the further instruction which then as converts they would have received (cv avnj> c8A) f both being included in ifidOert rbv Xpurrov. John x. 27 is not parallel, since <5xoiW in the sense " hearken to " would take the genitive. KaOu* ioriv aXjOeia br t<5 'Itjo-ov. The AV. " as the truth is in Jesus " is incompatible with the absence of the article, but admits >f being understood in the true sense of the Greek, which is not he case with the form in which the words are so often quoted, * the truth as it is in Jesus," which would be -rip AX-qBtiay koB<&> otiv, k.t.X. Nor do the words mean, as Jerome interprets: 'quomodo est Veritas in Jesu, sic erit in vobis qui dicficistis Christum," an interpretation which is followed by Estius and many others, and which makes Jesus be set forth as the pattern of truth, i.e. holiness. In addition to the difficulty of so understanding oAtJ0io, this supposes tytas to be emphatic, which its position forbids ; the antithesis would also require that br t<j> hprov should come after #ca0a>. Moreover, any interpretation which makes diro0c<rd<u depend on ihihdxBrjrt is open to the objection that in that case fyas is superfluous. Ellicott, who adopts this construction, suggests that vfias is introduced to mark their contrast, not only with other Gentiles, but with their own former state as implied in ttjv wportpav &va<rrpo<f>^v. But it is not clear how vfias can mark such a contrast Nor is c'SiS. suitable to &vaytov<r6aL It seems better to take d*-odc<r0cu ifias as the subject of we clause, aAijtfcia being understood in the sense "true teacluiig," opposed to arrdrq. Compare the use of aXrfltui. in John uL 21, "he that doeth the truth," and here, ver. 24. The sense will then be, " as is right teaching in Jesus that ye put off." The cinge from XpiordV to 'Iiyo-ov is appropriate. Their introduction to Christianity or to the TroAtreia of Israel instructed them in the hope centred in the Messiah as a Redeemer. But when obedience to the practical teaching of a historical person is referred to, the historical name is used.
Phil L 15
Him."
As
I36
[IV.
S8
v.
A very different view of the construction is taken by Credner, Soden, and Westcott and Hort mg., viz. that Xpurros is the subject of io-Tiv, in which case Aij0a may be either nom. (Credner, Soden) or dative (WH. mg.). Soden remarks that considering the emphatic repetition of avroV, iv avr<j>, which takes up tov Xp. from the clause with ovrois, the subject of this clause can only be Christ, viz. " as He is truth in Jesus," so that the thought is that they must not only believe in a Christ, but recognise Him in Jesus ; and if they are to live in truth in Christ, they must live in Jesus. The thought is parallel to Heb. xiii. 18. The dative dX^ct^, as in WH. mg., seems preferable, " have been taught in Him, as He is in truth, in Jesus." On aXrfitu^. in this Sense, COmp. PhiL L 18, fire 7rpo<acrci citc dAiyêû 22. diroOlotiai, a figure from putting off clothes = iirf #ccWa/ievoi, CoL iil 9, as ivSwracrOai from putting them on. The frequency of the figure in Greek writers puts out of the question any reference to change of dress in baptism (Grotius). It is rightly rendered in the Vulg. " deponere," not " deposuw The aorist expresses isse, which would require the perfect inf. the singleness of the act, whereas avavtovo-Oai expresses a continuing process. 1 The infih. is not for the imperative (as in PhiL iii. 16), which is inconsistent with vpac. "As concerns your former KttrA t*|k trporipar dram-po^p. manner of life," defining the particular respect in which the old man was to be put off. avaarpo<f>tf in this sense belongs to later Greek. The word originally meant a turning back, thence dwelling in a place ; hence Aeschylus uses it of a "haunt" We find it *caT< rt ttjv kourip in Pol) bins in the sense of " behaviour."
*ai ras pact? T$avfia<Tfivoq xnrtp rrjv rjXiKLav (iv. 8?. In the Sept. it occurs only in the so also Epict. i. 9. 5. Apocrypha, Tobit iv. 19 ; 2 Mace. v. 8 ; both times in this sense. tov iraXatbv ayOpoinov. The h/ui aapKucos of Rom. vii. 14 ; fyui adp(9 id. 18, opposed to avOpamoq 6 Kara tbv KTurOck. The adoption of the expression the old and the new ai^pwiro?, indicates that the change affects, not some particulars only, but the whole personality or bpa.
&vao-rpo<f>r)v
1)
rhv tOciplficpoi'. "Which waxeth corrupt" This supplies a motive for the putting off. The present tense indicates a process that is going on. Compare Rom. viii. 21, "bondage of <0opa.
Meyer thinks the reference is to eternal destruction, the present expressing either the future vividly conceived as perfect, or rather what already exists in tendency, "qui tendit ad *xitium," Grot
" Except after verbs of saying, thinking, etc, the aorist in the infinitive ha preterite signification, and differs from the present only in this, that it expresses a single transient action ; and even this bye-signification often falls
1
no
away."Madvig.
IV. 28]
THE NEW MAN
37
existing,
is that the moral corruption of the old man is already not " becoming." But though the corruption exists it is progressive. The tendency to perdition is expressed by St. Paul elsewhere by the term 6\iro\\vfiVOV Kara ras iwiOvfiia? ttJs diraTT/s. Mark the contrast with aXrfitia^ ver. 24 ; tt}s aird-np, not as in AV. a genitive of quality, but a subjective genitive, awdrri being almost personified, not, indeed, by the article alone, but by the It is the deceitful power of sin. Cf. attributing to it of anOv/uai.
His reason
dirdrri
irp afia/m'ac,
Heb.
iii.
13,
and Rom.
vii.
11,
rj
dfiapria
the iwiOvfuai derive their power 17 ayuaprtn K<xTipyd(raTo waxrav iirtOvjuav, ib. 8. It is quite against N.T. . . . usage to understand dirdnq here as " error." Compare dndrrj rov vkovrov, Matt xiii. 22 ; air. d&Kta?, 2 Thess. ii. 10. KaT<, " in accordance with," t\e. as their nature implies. 28. avavtovoQai. Passive, not middle, for the middle of this verb is always used transitively, in an active signification. Nor would it be Pauline to represent the renewal as springing from the man himself. Compare also dvaKaivovfivovt Col. iii. 1 o. It may be questioned whether ava- here implies restoration to a former state, as is generally assumed. In classical writers dvapcovo-dai means " to restore " ; but then the object expresses the original state, etc., which is thus brought into force or existence That is not the sense here, or in again, 6\v. opicoi*, <f>t\iav, eta CoL iii. 10, of ai'ajcao'owrtfat. Here the object is v/ias, and the meaning is, not that ye are to be brought out of a state of suspended existence, but that ye are to be changed so as to become vcot. What dva- implies, therefore, is simply change, and the meaning of the verb is to be illustrated by that of similar compounds of verbs derived from adjectives, where these adjectives would express the Such are Avto-om, " to equalise " result of the action of the verbs. avair\7)f>6<i}, " to fill " ; dvaKoivou), " to communicate " ; avicpwa, " to M consecrate, Le. to make Icros, irAi/pi^, icwd?, tcpd?. tm TTvcofum too vo&* upS?. This is understood of the Holy Spirit by Oecumenius and Theophylact, followed by Fritzsche, EUicott, and others (the genitive being thus possessive), the " (Divine) Spirit united with the human ttvcv/xo, with which the vox* as subject is endued, and of which it is the rcceptaculum? But this would be entirely without parallel The Holy Spirit is never called to 7rvcv/ia vftwv or rov voos vfuov, nor, indeed, does it seem possible that it should be so designated The spirit of the vow of a man must be the man's spirit irvcv/io, in the sense of the Holy M of holiSpirit, is sometimes followed by a characterising genitive ness," " of adoption," or, again, " of Christ," " of God " ; never " of This interpretation is particularly out of place us," or " of you." if dvavcovaOat is taken as depending on ci8ax0?rc. Bengel's interpretation is doubtless the correct one, "spiritus est intimum
i(aTrdrq<r /ac
:
Hence
I36
[IV.
S8
v.
A very different view of the construction is taken by Credner, Soden, and Westcott and Hort mg., viz. that Xpioro* is the
subject of law, in which case akrjBtt* may be either nom. (Credner, Soden) or dative (WH. mg.). Soden remarks that considering the emphatic repetition of avroV, iv avnjJ, which takes up row Xp. from the clause with ovru>s, the subject of this clause can only be Christ, viz. 4< as He is truth in Jesus," so that the thought is that they must not only believe in a Christ, but recognise Him in Jesus ; and if they are to live in truth in Christ, they must live in Jesus. The thought is parallel to Heb. xiii. 18. The dative dXtfOttt^ as in WH. mg., seems preferable, " have been
taught in Him, as
sense,
He
is in truth, in
Jesus."
On
akrfBtiq. in this
COmp. Phil L 18, citc 7rpo<a<ri citc aXrjdtui. 22. AiroOlotiai, a figure from putting off clothes = dircKcWa^cvoi, CoL iii. 9, as iv&wratrSai from putting them on. The frequency of the figure in Greek writers puts out of the question any reference to change of dress in baptism (Grotius).
It is rightly
rendered in the Vulg. " deponere," not " deposu-
which would require the perfect inf. The aorist expresses the singleness of the act, whereas avavtovadm expresses a continuisse,"
ing process. 1
iii.
The
is
infih.
is
not for the imperative (as in Phil,
16),
which
-rty
inconsistent with v/xas.
kcitA
irpoTlpar
dpaoTpo^r.
"As
concerns your former
defining the particular respect in which the old man was to be put off. avaorpo^ in this sense belongs to later Greek. The word originally meant a turning back, thence dwellfind it ing in a place ; hence Aeschylus uses it of a "haunt" Kara tc ttjv kotirrpr in Poly bins in the sense of " behaviour." avaaTpo<f>rjv koX ras 7jpact? Te$avpacrp.cvo owpffurd? of Rom. vii. 14 ; yw t6v naXawv avOpwirov, The adp, ib. 18, opposed to avdpwiroq 6 Kara 0cov KrurStU. adoption of the expression the old and the new avfyonro?, indicates that the change affects, not some particulars only, but the whole personality or y<o. rhv tOciplficpoi'. "Which waxeth corrupt" This supplies a
life,"
manner of
We
that
motive for the putting off. The present tense indicates a process is going on. Compare Rom. viii. 21, "bondage of <f>6opci n
Meyer thinks the reference is to eternal destruction, the present expressing either the future vividly conceived as perfect, or rather what already exists in tendency, " qui tendit ad exitium," Grot
" Except after verbs of saying, thinking, etc, the aorist in the infinitive ha* preterite signification, and differs from the present only in this, that it expresses a single transient action ; and even this bye-signification often falls
1
no
away."
Madvig.
tV. 25, 36]
WARNING AGAINST SPECIAL

The hands are Nor is the use
oo-ios
oo-tot
SINS
1 39
\tlpas \(apU opyrp xcu Sia\oyi<r/uov9 the
of oatos occurs thrice in the Acts in quotations from Here, as in the O.T. which do not concern St Paul's usage. Luke i. 75 and Wisd. ix. 5, the words seem used in a way which had become familiar as a summary of human virtue. The suggestion that Sucaioovvri is in contrast to *Acovc#a, and 6<riarrp to %Ka$ap<ria (Olsh. Alf. 11.), has against it, not only the distance from ver. 19, and the cv there (not #e<u), but also the fact that these *re not the proper opposites. The opposite of dtca$. is not otriorrp wt dyvorqc ; and htKato<rvvrj is very much more than the opposite if w\W(ia in any sense of that word. 1 rip dXîas. G, It, Cypr. Hil. read #c<u ik^t^. 25-32. Warning against special sins. 25. Aid diroOlficvoi t& t|rcu&o$. There is no need to render ' having put away," which would seem to imply a separation in time between the two actions. The aorist suits the Greek idiom, " is falsehood is to be put away once for all ; but * putting away igrees better with the English. ^rd}So, "falsehood," is, of course, suggested by &krfl**a\ it is more general than " lying," which is mentioned immediately after as the most obvious example of it So Col. hi. 8, /tij if/cv&to-Ot. But to ^cv8o9 is falsehood in all its forms ; cf. Rom. L 25 ; Rev. xxiL 15. Herd is more forcible than wy>os (Zech. viii 16), implying "in your mutual intercourse." Sti i<rp*v 6\\rjkv pAi). Chrysostom carries out the figure in a striking manner, e.g. if the eye sees a serpent, does it deceive the foot? if the tongue tastes what is bitter, does it deceive the stomach ? etc This is passable in a homily, but in the text the argument is not at all founded on the figure, but on the fact that we are members of the body of Christ: "est enim monstrum si membra inter se non consentiant, imo se fraudulenter inter se agant," Calvin ; cf. Rom. xii 5, to 8e naff cfe cIAAt^W fttkr). As each member belongs to the rest, they may be called members one of the other. Comp. 1 Cor. xii. 15. 26. opyileoOc k<&1 pi) AfiapTrfitTc. These words are a quotation from Ps. iv. 5 (EV. 4), LXX., "Stand in awe, and sin not" But expositors so diverse in their views as Hitzig and Delitzsch agree with the rendering of the LXX. The Hebrew verb primarily means " to tremble," and unless it were followed by " before me," or the like, could not mean definitely " stand in awe." It occurs in Prov. xxix. 9 and Isa. xxviii. 21 in the sense "to be angry." It is, however, superfluous, as far as the present passage is concerned, to inquire what the meaning of the original is. St Paul is not arguing from the words, but adopting them as well known,
at all peculiar,
the oo-ion;?. up in prayer.
when not
added words do not define unfitted to be lifted with apxtcpcifc, Heb. vii. 26,
I36
[IV.
S8
v.
A very different view of the construction is taken by Credner, Soden, and Westcott and Hort mg., viz. that X/ho-tos is the
subject of law, in which case dA^'feta may be either nom. (Credner, Soden) or dative (WH. mg.). Soden remarks that considering the emphatic repetition of avroV, iv ovrw, which takes up row Xp. from the clause with ovrws, the subject of this clause can only be Christ, viz. " as He is truth in Jesus," so that the thought is that they must not only believe in a Christ, but recognise Him in Jesus ; and if they are to live in truth in Christ, they must live in Jesus. The thought is parallel to Heb. xiiL 18. The dative SXrfiiif^ as in WH. mg., seems preferable, " have been taught in Him, as He is in truth, in Jesus." On d\rf$iq. in this Sense, COmp. PhiL L 18, citc irpoâo-ci citc aAiyfoiiju 22. &iro0c*<r6ai, a figure from putting off clothes arcKcWa/zcvoi, The frequency of Col. iii. 9, as cV8wra<r0cu from putting them on. the figure in Greek writers puts out of the question any reference to change of dress in baptism (Grotius). It is rightly rendered in the Vulg. " deponere," not " deposuThe aorist expresses isse," which would require the perfect inf. the singleness of the act, whereas avaviovo-Qm expresses a continuing process. 1 The infifi. is not for the imperative (as in PhiL iii. 16), which is inconsistent with v/xas. kotA t?)k irpoWpar dm<rrpo^K "As concerns your former manner of life," defining the particular respect in which the old man was to be put off. avacrrpwfry in this sense belongs to later Greek. The word originally meant a turning back, thence dwellfind it ing in a place ; hence Aeschylus uses it of a "haunt" Kara tc t^v kounpr in Poly bins in the sense of "behaviour." dvaarpo^v teal tos irpac(? T$avpacrpcvo<; wrlp ttjv rjkuctav (iv. 82. In the Sept. it occurs only in the 1) ; so aUo Epict. i. 9. 5. Apocrypha, Tobit iv. 19 ; 2 Mace. v. 8 ; both times in this sense. The lyta trapKuco? of Rom. vii. 14 ; iyta rov vaXauov avOpwrrov.
We
adp$,
ib.
18,
opposed to
avOpoyrros
Kara c6v KrurOck.
The
adoption of the expression the old and the new avOpamo^, indicates that the change affects, not some particulars only, but the whole
personality or fyu.
t6v ÔcifxSficôK. "Which waxeth corrupt" This supplies a motive for the putting off. The present tense indicates a process that is going on. Compare Rom. viii. 21, "bondage of <f>$op<L n
Meyer thinks the reference is to eternal destruction, the present expressing either the future vividly conceived as perfect, or rather what already exists in tendency, "qui tendit ad .xitium, w Grot
1
" Except after verbs
of saying, thinking,
no
preterite signification,
and
differs
;
expresses a single transient action
etc., the aorist in the infinitive ha from the present only in this, that it and even this bye-signification often falls
away."-Madvig.
IV. 37, 28]
SINS
I4I
observes, " let the day of your anger be the day of your reconciliation," for the new day began at sunset The Pythagoreans, as Plutarch informs us, observed the same rule, cmtotc trpwrayOtiar C19 XotSopta? vir opryrp, irpiv r) tov tjXlqv Swat, tols Sct'ac c/x/JaAAoircs aWrjXots koI dcnrao-aficvoi BkXvovto (Plut De Am. Frat. 488 B). Eadie quotes a quaint comment from Fuller, " Let us take the with all possible speed apostle's meaning rather than his words to depose our passion, not understanding him so literally that wf may take leave to be angry till sunset, then might our wraf'. lengthen with the days ; and men in Greenland, where days l?st above a quarter of a year, have plentiful scope of revenge." 27. jii]& SiBotc t$ oia06A. The Rec has /tip*, with most cursives ; all the uncials apparently have fwyoc. firjr would imply that St Paul might have said /xi/rc . . . pi/rc, but wrote fir) in the first clause, because not then thinking of the second. Such a usage, firj . . . /up-e, is so rare in classical authors that some scholars have denied its existence, and it is not elsewhere found in St. Paul. The distinction between firjr . . . /nyrc and firfii . . . fLrfot, according to Hermann and others, is that the former divide a single negation into parts which are mutually exclusive; and neither negation gives a complete whole; thus corresponding to "neither . . . neither." Comp. Matt vL 26, ov (nrcipovo-tv ov& $plpwriv ovSl <rwayowriv9 " they SOW not, and they reap not, and gather not " ; Matt xu. 32, ovrc br rovry t$
toW
tcji filXXovriy " neither in this world nor in the future," these being the two divisions of ov* apcAprcTai. Stoorc roVov, i.e. room to act, since indulgence in angry feelings leads to hatred, malice, and all uncharitableness. Comp. Rom. xii. 1 9, ootc roVov rjj Spyjj. r$ SiaôXo>. 6 5ta/?o\o? is used by St Paul only in this and Erasmus, Luther, and others understand the word the Pastorals. here as simply " calumniator," and so the Syriac. But elsewhere In 1 Tim. iii. 1 1 in N.T. 6 StdfioXos always means " the devil." 2 Tim. iii. 3 ; Tit ii. 3, the word is used as an adjective. 28. 6 kXcVtwk |&i)kcti kXchtctw. Not " qui furabatur," as Vulg., an attempt to soften the proper force of the word. Jerome mitigates the word in a different way, interpreting it of everything " quod alterius damno quaeritur," and favours the application to the " furtum spirituale " of the false prophets. The present participle seems intermediate between 6 xAci/ras and 6 KXbrrrjs. p&Wor & Koiri^Ti, rather, on the contrary, let him labour, cpyalopcw? Tats [toiais] xe Pr ** dyaOoV.
alC>i ovrc cV
There
a considerable variety of reading here Tott Ulcus x*P*1 " r6 &ya$fo, K*ADG, Vulg. Clarom. Goth. Arm. rait X'P "^ T& &-yaQt>** K4 B, Amiat., Ambrosiaster. 10 mss., Theodoret. rd dyatibv rtui IdUui x*P*b t
is
142
[IV. Zi
rh &ya$br rait xe/xrb', L most mss., Chrys. Theoph. Oecum. The chief question is as to the genuineness of Idiots. On the one hand, it it suggested that it may have been intentionally omitted because its force wai not perceived, and so it was thought to be superfluous ; on the other hand, that it may be an interpolation from I Cor. iv. 12. Against the former suggestion is the circumstance that in the passage in Cor. , where the word might with even more reason be thought superfluous, no copyist has omitted it The insertion, on the other hand, was very natural. The case of ri &ya06r is very different The variation in its position is, indeed, suspicious, and a nearer definition of ipyaftfuroi might have seemed necessary (since, as Chrys. observes, 6 k\Htwp ipydtrrat, dXXd KaxSr), and Gal. vi. 10 would then suggest rh ay*06* ; but the only authority for its omission is Tertullian {Res.
Cam.
45).
ro &yaQ6v.
"Antitheton ad furtum prius
manu
piceata male
commissum," BengeL
is
striking
iKo ?xfl pcTa&i&oVai ry \ptiav typwTK. The and characteristic, although surely
motive here alleged
we cannot
say, with
of all Christian labour; unless by "Christian labour" is meant labour over and above what is necessary for the labourer's own subsistence. That, by the law of nature, is the first object, unless we include with it the support of his own family. Schoettgen infers from this clause that there were some who thought their thefts might be atoned for by almsgiving ; and he quotes passages from Jewish writers which refer to such a delusion (Yalkut Rubeni, f. no. 4; Vayyiqra Rabba, f. 147. 1). Not, indeed, that there was any such " Jewish opinion," as some writers assert But the precept here is too general to be so understood, it simply (as Meyer remarks) opposes to unlawful taking, dutiful
giving.
Olshausen and
Ellicott, that this is the true specific object
The
20. iros Xoyos aairpos k too crr6f&aTO$ up-wy pi) eiciropculaQu. negative belongs to the verb; cf. Rom. iii. 20; Gal. il 16, ov StKauadTjO'crcu Trdcra <rdp( I Cor. i. 29, otto? firj Kav^rJoT^rat 7racra The expression is quite logical ; whereas in English, if we <rdpi. say " all flesh shall not be justified," the negative really belongs to " all," not to the verb. owrpo*? is primarily "rotten, diseased," hence in classical writers " disgusting." In the N.T. it is used of a " worthless " tree, Matt It is clear, therefore, that the vii. 17, xii. 33 ; fish, Matt. xiii. 48. word does not of itself mean " filthy," and Chrys. interprets it as meaning & firj ttjv toYty xP" av nkypoi (Horn. iv. on Tim.), and Theodoret makes it include ar;(poAoyia, AotSopta, crvKo<f>avrCa^
:
/3\acr<f>r]fjua}
if/evSoXoyCa,
kcli
to.
toi'tois -Trpocrofioia.
With
this
we
But although might compare thx* prjfia dpyov, Matt xii. 36. owrpfc, used of material things, may mean simply what is only fit to be thrown away, just as " rotten " is colloquially used by English schoolboys, it may be questioned whether in connexion with Aoyot it must not have a more specific meaning, something,
IV. 80]
SINS
43
perhaps, like our word " foul " used of language, including, like it, not merely " filthy," but scurrilous language. So Arrian opposes (rairpol koyoi to KOfLiffoi (Diss. Epict iii. 16, p. 298, ap. Kypke) aAAa ci tis dya06<% irpos otKoSofirjv rrjs \pLa<s. For XP cca ? there is a remarkable variant, ttuttcws, in D* G, Vulg-Clem. (but Amiat. " pro eo quod nos has xP cias) Goth. Jerome expressly says
:
posuimus ad aedificationcm opportunitatis, hoc est quod dicitur Graece -n\% xPcta? Latinis codicibus propter euphoniam mutavit
>
interpres et posuit
Xfxla*
It is
is
ad aedificationcm fidcL"
the reading of K
somewhat curious that
A B K L P and nearly all mss. and versions. in Rom. jrii 13, D* G substitute fwtlaii
by no means
;
for
for tU \P ^s i*>> as the actual " need " or " occasion " is that which is to be affected by the edifying influence of the discourse. In Acts vi 3 the word seems to mean " occasion " or " matter in hand " (" whom we may set over this XP-")Field aptly cites Plutarch, Vit PcricL viil, /iiySc prjfia fufikv iKirtvtiv OKOVTOf aVTOV 7Tp6s TTJV TTpOKlflVT]V ^pLUV avdpfJLOOTOV. ThuS the sense is " for the improvement of the occasion." So in substance Theophylact owep oucoSofii rov irkrfcriov avayKalov ov rp 7rpOKip.ivrj XP"<h znd Jerome: "juxta opportunitatem loci temporis et personae aedificare audientes." Olshausen and Riickert take Xpcta as abstract for concrete = those that have need, which would make tt/s xpw superfluous. Xva 09 x&pw tois dKououaiK. "That it may give benefit to them that hear." &3 xapty has been variously interpreted Chrysostom somewhat strangely understands it to mean " make the hearer grateful," tâ \dpiv croi cteg 6 d*oiW, but adding as an alternative, Iva *cxapirTheodoret observes, x*P lv TVV &vprfiiav fiipovc a&rovs ipydcrqTai. fcoAco-c* tovtcotiv ivo ff>air Sckto? rot? cue. But edifying discourse cannot always be acceptable, nor should this be the object aimed at ; nor, again, does ot&Wi x&P lv ever have this meaning. Said of persons, it means to grant a favour. But Plutarch has the phrase with reference to food given to invalids ov^ylav r^Sovrfv ovSk \dpiv diro&oWt, " it confers neither pleasure nor benefit" And in N.T. X<p is similarly used, as in 2 Cor. i. 15, "that ye might have a second x* ; viii. 6, " that he would complete in you this x- also." But as x*pts has a specially spiritual meaning in the N.T. generally, there is no reason to deny such a reference here. 80. ical fiî XuirciTc to ripcupa to *AyioK too 6cou. The connexion with the foregoing is well expressed by Theophylact iav cfrrn? p*jpn> owrpbv real &vdiov rov ^piariavov ordfwwos, owe avOptDirov {Aurora?, &XXa rd irvevpa rov cov. The warning assumes the
els
oiKoSop.^
is
ttjs
A V.
XP** 01**
xPia?
the objective genitive
144

and
by such
sins of the tongue.
[IV. 81,
33
to
indwelling of the Spirit,

that Spirit
referring
it
vividly expresses the offence
done
it
Aquinas weakens
in others.
by
to grieving the Spirit of
God
iv
cTra
cff+payur6r)Tc.
This supplies the ground of the motive.

Zva fitifov yhntjrai
rj
#c<u rj
irpo<r$r)K7) Trjs cvcpyeorta?,
Karrjyopia,
Chrys. Some of the older as well as later commentators see in the words a suggestion that the Spirit may thus be led to depart, and the seal be lost Had this been intended, /at) irapofwerf would have been more suitable. But there is no suggestion of a possible departure of the Spirit ; even the tense of i(r<f>payl<r0riT*9 referring
as
it does to a sealing once for all, is against this. But it would be equally erroneous to say that the doctrine of " final perseverance " is contained or implied When a son is warned that if he acts in such and such a manner he will grieve his father, this does
not suggest that his father
may
cast
for,
him
off.
cis ^p*paK diro\uTp<<rcw5,
i.e.
or with a view
to,
the day of
complete redemption. On diroX. cf. i. 14. 31. iraaa mxpCa, "every kind of bitterness," the temper which cherishes resentful feelings. Aristotle defines the iriKpol as " hard to be reconciled" (SwrStaAvrot), and retaining their anger for a long time. ical Ouji&s nat dpy^. These flow from the temper of xucpta, j5ta
Ovfiov Kal opyrp irticpta, Chrys. Of these two, Ovpfc expresses rather the temporary excitement of passion ; opyij, the more settled anger. Thus Greg. Naz. Carm. 34, fopoc /&eV <mv aOpoos cW
<pcvos,
oprpi 8c 0v/xos
/AfjLvu>v.
6pyrjv irpo Bvjjlov, before

opyi) apxpfiwr} (Diog.
cat
it
bursts out.
vii.
Hence Ecclus. xlviii. 10, xoiracrai The Stoics defined Ovfws as

:
Laert
7)
114).
Kpauyi) Kal 0\acr+T)|ua.

<f>ipwv
Chrysostom well observes

Kpavyrj leads tO
tmros
yap ioriv ava/3drqv

is
Kpavyrj rr)v Spyrjv* crv/x7roSicrov rov tinrov,
koX icarc<rrpi/ras rov dva/Janyv.

clearly " reviling,"
/SAao^fua, which
iii.
cOk
Ovfiov,
irc<n|
not " blasphemy." xaxia. Associated also in
CoL
8 with opyv>
added cuo-xpoAoyio. It is not but "malice," "animi pravitas, quae humanitati et aequitati est opposita." So Suidas 7) rov kokuhtox rov 7rc\a? ottov8}. It is the very opposite of what follows.
pkacrfafLia, to badness in general,
is
and
which
there
32. -V. 2. Exhortation to be tender-hearted and forgiving, following as a pattern God's forgiveness in Christ. 82. yircotic hi, " become, show yourselves." Corresponding to dpOrfTu) &<f> v/ioiv on the other side. xP 1J <rro h " kind." This is the only place in the Epistles where the adjective occurs ; it is used of God in Luke vi. 35 ; so the substantive, ch. ii. 7 ; Tit. iii. 4, etc. euoirXayxcoi, "tender-hearted," in this sense only in biblical and ecclesiastical writers. Hippocrates has it in the physical sense, " having healthy bowels," Euripides uses the substantive
IV. 83]
SINS
I45
The adjective dxnrXayxvta in the sense "firmness of heart." occurs in the same sense as here in the Prayer of Manasses, 7, and in Test. XII Patr. y of God Comp. the parallel Gol. iiL 12, cnrAay^va oucrtp/xov. Origen presses iavroU as Xapi<5j4w>i {airrots = Col. iiL 13. indicating that what was done to another was really done to themselves, 81a to (rvo-aiopovs ^/ias c&ac; Meyer and Alford think it implies that the forgiveness they are to show to others has as its pattern that which was shown to them as a body in Christ, eavrois being thus emphatic In CoL iii. 12, also, we have dvcxopcvoi aWrjkw kcli xapt6fjLvoi cavrcus, and again, 1 Pet iv. 8-10, -rip cfc
c aAAiJAovs . . . cis are not justified in putting so much into the word as Meyer's explanation supposes ; but so much is true, that iavroU suggests, more than aAA.17A.ot?, that they are addressed as members of one corporate body. This use of Demosthenes has /fovAcotfc . . . the word is quite classical
cavrovs dydmjv Iktcvt} fyoires . iavrovs [to xapur/Aa] oWovowrcs.
.
<f>i\6( tvoi
We
avrwv vwOdvto-Oai (p. 43, 1 o). Comp. also Xen. Mem. iii. 6 (quoted by Lightfoot on CoL), aWl p.*v rov owtpyuv cavrots to. crvfufitpovTa, cm/pcaôwi? dWrjXois, koX <f>0ovovo-LV iavrois ftaWov r) roc? aAAot? dvOpwirots ... teal 7rpoaipovvrai paWov ovna icepoatvcu' Also Dem. Mid. 101, p. 547. air* dWrj\<Dv rj ctwox^cAovvtc? avrov?. The Vulgate has erroneously " donantes," and Erasmus, " larn-cpu'ovTcs
5.
1
gientes,"
mean
but the "forgiving."
following context shows that the
word must
Ka0&s xai, the same motive that is appealed to in the Parable of the Unforgiving Servant 6 6o iv Xpurrfl. " In Christ," not " for Christ's sake," as AV. f The sense is the same as in for which there is no justification. 2 Cor. v. 19, "God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto Himself." Not "per Christum " (Calvin), nor even /xci-a rot kivSvvov tou viov aurov Kal TTjs o-<t>ayf)s avrov (Theoph.), of which there is no hint in the cv ; but, as in the passage in 2 Cor., God manifesting Himself in, acting in (not " through "), Christ Hence in CoL iiL 13 it is 6 Kvpios \apUra.ro v/uv.
IxaphraTo vplv.
The
readings here and in ch. t. 2 vary between the
N 37, Vulg. (Clem.) Goth. Sah. Boh. both Syr. Arm. Inv. 2tua* byABP37, Sah. Eth. fouwby 17 47, Vulg. Syr. (both) Boh. Goth. Arm. lb. tftwr by B 37, Sah. Eth. ii/iQw by K 17 47, Vulg. Syr. (both) Boh. Goth. Arm. Or, to put it otherwise, we have
Eth.
iifup
second and the first person. In iv. 32 hpZp is read by
by
DKL
AGP
17, 47,
KDGKL
ADGKLP
fyi.
6/i.
in all three places, in all three, Sah. Eth.

ftp.
DKL
17 47, Syr.
Arm.
vn.
fek,
AP.
IO
I46
ftp. to*.

V- K'Vulg. Goth.
B.
^/a. d/x. 6/*.,
[V. 1
Critics differ in their judgment.
K) reads
hfu
V-
in all three places.
Lachmann (judging in the absence of Teschendorf (8th ed. ) and Tregelles adopt
(Treg., however, in iv. 32, giving iûp a place in the margin). So in the margin in the first and third places). So v. Soden and RV. (with fyx, in the mg. in the first place and up. in the third). Alford, Ellicott, and Eadie prefer fyi- 4m VThe confusion of the two pronouns is very frequent. As far as documentary evidence is concerned, the reading adopted in RV. seems to have the advantage. The evidence for 6fu*r in the third place is comparatively small, and it is very natural that St Paul, while using the second person in close connexion with the precepts xapc{*6/ceroc, weptrareiTe 4v dydirg, should pass from that to the more general statement in the first person. Indeed, it is perhaps not going too far to say that while " God forgave you," " Christ loved you," are perfectly natural, it would not seem so natural to say, " Christ gave Himself for you," although the individual believer may say, " He gave Himself for me," Gal. ii. 2a
6/jl ^/a.
WH.
(who place V.
fyapuraTo, " forgave," as referring to a past historical fact. Note that in CoL iii. 13 it is 6 Kvpio?, with 6 X/moto? in some texts.
V,
1. yiK<r0 o5V |U|iY|Tai toO ecoo.
of God."
ylv<r$
resumes the
that verse, "forgiving ... as imitation inculcated is in respect of this particular virtue, and the oZv, therefore, connects this verse with that immediately preceding, not with the whole foregoing subject. Imitators of God!
" Become therefore imitators yiW0c of iv. 32. The words of God forgave you," show that the
The
it
idea is a grand and ennobling one ; and our Lord Himself sets before us, and in the same aspect, when He says, " Ye there-
fore shall in that "
your heavenly Father is perfect," namely, His sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and the unjust " (Matt v. 45, 48). So that we also should love our enemies.
be
perfect, as
He maketh
The forgiveness inculcated is obviously free forgiveness, as in That this is here the passage just cited and in the Lord's Prayer. placed on the ground of imitation of God's forgiveness is a decisive proof that St Paul did not view the Atonement in the light of payment of a debt or endurance of a penalty demanded by Divine The most unforgiving of men, if not actually vindictive, justice. might say, I am quite ready to forgive on the same terms on which you say that God forgives, viz. that the debt be fully paid, the offence fully atoned for. Chrysostom has a fine comment on There is a great difference, he says, this " forgiving one another." between God's forgiveness and ours, "for, if thou forgivest, the other will in turn forgive thee; but to God thou hast forgiven nought And thou to thy fellow-servant, but God to His servant, and His enemy, and him that hateth Him. And He did not forFor that give simply without peril, but with the peril of His Son. He might forgive thee He sacrificed the Son, rov Yiov iOvcn, but thou, although often seeing forgiveness to be without peril or expense, dost not exercise it"
V. 2]
THE DIVINE PATTERN OF LOVE
I47
6s rcVra &yain)T({, i.e. as children beloved of God. He adds, says Chrys., another obligation of imitating God, not only because He has conferred benefits on us, but because we are His children, " If God so loved us, we also ought nay, His beloved children. to love one another." 2. K<u irepiirareiTc eV dydirg, specifying, further, wherein the imitation of God is to be shown. Love is to be the rule of our
life.
kqOws Kiu 6 XpioT&s

^jik.
i\ydin\<rv djias, xal irap&cMccK laurbv
facp
have loved you, that ye also ai napthmKcv expresses wherein this love was love one another." shown. So ver. 25, "loved the Church, and gave Himself for it " ; Gal. ii. 20, " loved me, and gave Himself for me." The verb requires no supplement, such as *k Odvarov or r<p 0c<p ; see Rom. wrcp, " on behalf of." viii. 32 ; Gal. ii. 20, and ver. 25. irpooôp&f k<li Buaiav -np 6c tw @c<3 is best connected with these words for the reason just mentioned ; not with the following, since this would suppose the words placed emphatically
xiii.
Compare John
34, " as I
before
which
0-/417-/, as if to exclude the idea of human pleasure, out of the question, xpexrôpa and BvaU are sometimes said to specify respectively an unbloody and a bloody offering ; but such a distinction cannot be maintained either in classical or biblical Greek. The idea of "sacrifice" in 6v*> is not derived from that of slaying, but of " smoking," " burning incense." This was, according to Aristarchus, the meaning of the verb in Homer For cf. Latin " fumus," " subfio," which are from the same root biblical usage see Gen. iv. 3 ; Num. vii. 49, 73, eta The alleged sense would be especially out of harmony with the figurative use of
efc
is
Bvcrui in St. Paul, (hxria owra,
Rom.
xii.
cf.
Phil.
ii.
17, iv. 18.
supposes that irpoo-Qopd is used as the more general term, relating, not to the death only, but to the life of obedience of our blessed Lord, His Ovcria fuxra ; while aWta refers more particularly to His atoning death. The words appear, however, to be borrowed from Ps. xl. 6 (quoted Heb. x. 5), where they are used simply as together including all kinds of ceremonial offering. " For a sweet-smelling savour." The figure cis tapty cfo&iaf. was founded originally on the heathen idea that the smell of the burnt sacrifice did literally ascend to the gods, who thereby participated with the worshipper in the sacred feast. So in Homer often ; see especially //. xxiv. 69, 70, ov yap fiat wrc P^pjbs cScvcro &UTos 10-779, Aoi/3?}s re Kvunp re* to yap kd\ofiv yepa? T7/xi<;. It is appropriate only to a burnt-offering. That St. Paul here speaks of Christ as a sacrifice cannot, of But does he do so by way of stating the course, be denied. na f ure or manner of the atonement ? Surely not. There is not one word to hint at the relation of this sacrifice to God's forgiveEllicott
148
ness.

On
the contrary,
[V.
God
in Christ forgiving us,
and Christ
showing His love by His offering of Himself, are put forward as exactly parallel examples ; indeed, in view of the parallel in Col., 6 Kvptos ixapio-aro, we might say as one and the same. It is this single aspect of Christ's sacrifice as a supreme exhibition of love on the part both of the Father and of the Son that is here presented Indeed, in Rom. viii. 32 the very same word irapc'oWc is used of And if we cannot argue the Father that is here used of the Son.
the apostle -were here stating the essential nature of the still less are we justified in assuming that he had in Whatever the his mind the " substitutionary " view of sacrifice. original idea of sacrifice may have been (and certainly the substitutionary view is not the only one possible), neither psalmists nor apostles seem to have had this idea present to their minds whenever they spoke of sacrifice. The psalmist speaks of sacrificing thanksgiving and praise (Ps. 1. 14); St. Paul, of his offering of the Gentiles (Rom. xv. 16). In Rom. xii. 1, already quoted, he calls on his readers In Phil. ii. 1 7 he represents to present their bodies as a sacrifice. himself as offering their faith as a sacrifice ; and in the same Ep., iv. 18, he calls their present to him a sacrifice, an odour of a With the exception of 1 Cor. x. 1 8 (" they that eat sweet savour. of the sacrifices "), these are the only passages beside the present This gives little support to the in which he uses the words. notion that we are to interpret his words here as if we were dealing with a treatise on scientific theology. Chrysostom certainly does not err in this way. He observes 6pqS, TO V7Tp )(0pU>V TTa6tXV> OTl 6(Tfirj tVOoStd? fori, #CCU Owld cvjrpoo~8c#cTO ; kov 6.iro0dvysy t6t lay Ovcia' tovto fiifnjaaaBai i<m rov eov. 3-11. Special warnings against sins of impurity,
as
if
atonement,
8. iropytia %k ital
dxa6apaia
as
iroUra
f|
ir\covc(ta |*i)U hv*yja\lu$i*
iv by.lv.
iropveta
is
mentioned
being
sin
of
little
amongst the
says Moule,
(TrAcovefia)
Gentiles.
On
tr\ov(Ca see iv. 19.
account This passage,
a familiar though not fixed connexion with sensual greed, just such as our word " covetousness " has acquired with the greed of material property. It is urged here that rj indicates that the two words between which it stands belong to different classes. But in the following verse we have rj between fiu>po\oyia and cvrpaircAta, which do not belong to different classes. Herodotus says of the Persians a<r<ra Sc o-fa fi.rjSk ovofia&otiu).
in St. Paul's time,
:
more perhaps than any had acquired by usage,
other, suggests that the
word
iroiiv
owe ^coTt, TavTa o$8c Acyciv escort (i. 1 38). But St. PauFs precept refers to particular classes of sin only. Compare ver. 12. oi yap \6yoi tCjv irpay/xarwv urlv 6$oi, Chrys. Bengel suggests
; :
V. 4]
for dvofi. "
vfjuv
WARNING AGAINST IMPURITY
49
this,
mentioned as committed," " ut facta " ; cf. 4*ovcr<u h pvtaf i Cor. v. i. But, besides that 0V0/4. can hardly mean /jnjSc, " not even," is decisive against it
f|
4. Kal aiaxpoTi)$ k<u futpoXoyia
cfrrpaircXtcu
jcoi
The MSS. and

places.
Vss. vary between

.
and 4 in the
first
and second
AD
G, It Vulg. Sah. have 1
. . .
*
tad.
.
MBD*K, Boh. Eth. have ai H # P, Syr-Hard. Ann. have k*1

.
.
.
1}.
lAchmann writes 1j
aurxpvnf;
is
1j,
Tischendorf,
RV. ml
. 1j,
WH.
jrai
koL
not merely "foolish talking," which would be Plato has (of Rhadaaltrxpokoyia, but "shameful conduct" manthus inspecting the souls of the dead): 6xrvppxrpw re k<u aurxporrfros yipxxwrav rip ^rv^fv ctScv (Gorg. 525 A) ; but there the word means the hideousness stamped on the soul by the vices of the living man. It is a rare ftftjpoAoyto, " stultiloquium," only here in bibl. Grk. word also in classical writers, but occurs in Arist (Hist An. i. 11) and Plutarch {Mar. 504 B). Plautus uses " morologus," " Amoris vitio non meo nunc tibi morologus fio" (Fers. L 1. 50).
tvTpavtkv*.
Aristotle
defines
cvrp. as ircirouSciyxcxi/ v/?pcc.
ot
IpptXSx ttcuJovtcs evrpan-cXoi irpocrayopwovrai. But he adds that, since most persons are pleased with excessive jesting, ot pwpo\6xot cvrpan-cXot irpoo-ayopcvovrcu (Eth. Nic. iv. 14), /.*., as in many Other This would cases, the extreme usurps the name of the near. But for the justify St Paul's usage, were there nothing else. adjective compare also Pindar, Pyth. i. 178, py ooAco0#f cvrpaircAoif Ktp&tov , and iv. 104, where Jason boasts that he has never spoken ciros cvrpaircAov. According to Dissen, the word was used " cum levitatis et assentationis, simulationis notatione " ; but this does not seem to be the meaning here, where the context clearly Trench compares the points to licentious speech; see ver. 5. history of the Latin "urbanitas" and the English "facetious." He notes that in the Miles Gioriosus of Plautus, the old man who describes himself as " cavillator facetus " says " Ephesi sum natus non enim in Apulis, non Animulae."
:
&ofo&viJK<r.
most.
SottABP. Rec
has rd od* drîrorra, with
DGKL and
AXXA pdXXoK c^xapurrio. Clement of Alex, understands cfy. here of " gracious speech " ; and so Jerome (but with a " forsitan ") " juxta quam grati sive gratiosi et salsi apud homines appellamur," an opinion followed by Calvin, Hammond, and many others,
"gracious, pious, religious discourse in general," Hammond; points to the Iva &p \df *v tois <Lc. in iv. 29, and " let your Col. iv. 6. In Prov. xi. 16 we speech be always iv x< M have ywi) tvxapurros, " a gracious, pious woman." The adjective is
who
V V m
l
150

:
[V. 5
sometimes so used in classical authors cvxapioTorarot Aoyoi, Xen. Cyr. ii. 2. 1. This would suit the context very well ; but as it is not only against St Pauls use of the word elsewhere, but, moreover, there is no example of the substantive in this sense, it would be too bold to adopt it. We have to understand a suitable verb from 6voi*aic<r0*i both for this and the preceding substantives. The sense is not: "let not foolish speech be mentioned but " let there not be," etc. Bengel understands thanksgiving, but avrjKct to v\apLirrla ; and so Braune ; which with the reading & ow
f 11
:
avrJKi>
In these cases of is not unnatural, but more harsh. brachylogy there is really no need to look for a verb, the sense is obvious to the reader. tore is the reading of N A B 5. touto y&p lore yip&rKoiTcs. D* P, It Vulg. Goth. Sah. Boh. Arm., Chrys. c cart, that of L, Theodoret, Theoph. Internal as well as core yu>. would be a feeble external evidence favours the former, periphrasis for otSar or yuw#ceT, since there is no hint here of an emphasis on the present tense. The combination of the two verbs is not to be explained by reference to the Hebrew idiom, which combines a finite verb with the infinitive absolute (imitated in Greek by the participle with Xenophon's the finite verb), since the verbs here are different. bplav Kal ojcowav olSa (Cyr. iv. 1. 14) is nearer, but not exactly parallel, since there the participles define the kind of knowledge "I know by observation and hearsay." The meaning is clear: "ye know full well, of your own knowledge." urrc is not imperative, as in the Vulgate and Bengel, etc., which does not at all Hofmann puts a stop after agree with the addition yivwoTcovTcs. tort, so as to make rovro refer to the preceding. On was owe cf. iv. 29.
D K
5 itrnv clS*\o\<TpT)s.
Amr eWwXoXdrpiyf, Syr- Hard. Boh. Arm., Chrys. 6 iariw eWwXoXarpefa, G, It Vulg. Goth.; Syr-Pesh. (printed text) has " or," which points to 5. The last is supposed by Meyer to have been an explanation of the second, which he thinks genuine, the first being produced from this by restoring cldwXoX&Tpjjt. But it is quite as easy to account for the third variety as arising from the first, because ddwXoKdrprjs was thought unsuitable to 6. If the second reading had been the original, it is not easy to see why it should have been changed ; but 6 would readily be changed to 6s for grammatical reasons.
6s
There are three readings 6 4<mw etf wXoXrfrpip, K B 67*, Jerome.
ADKLP,
With the reading os some commentators (Harless, Braune, etc) refer the relative to all three antecedents ; but this is not so natural as the reference to 7r\oveVr?y, which also corresponds with Col. iii. 5, irAcovcf Cav9 iJtis iarlv ci8o)\oAaTpcia, although there
V. 6]
151
ijri? as by attraction for am a, as Eph. iii. 13. With the reading o, the latter reference must, of course, be adopted On the designation of irA. as idolatry, see above on
also Harless regards
passages from Rabbinical writers, quoted by Schottgen They light on the matter. vice as idolatry ; pride, anger, refusal to give alms. If vA.cov#a is simply " covetousness," the question is, why should this, any more than fornication and impurity, be singled out to be called idolatry? Meyer says that iropvta and dxaOapcria are also subtle idolatry (certainly not " more subtle forms," Ellicott), but that it was natural for St Paul, whose own self-sacrificing spirit was so opposed to this self-seeking, to brand this especially as idolatry in order to make it /car' lioxqv abominable. There is nothing in his language elsewhere to support this idea. One of Chrysostom's explanations shows how difficult he found it to answer the question. Wouldst thou learn, says he, how vK is idolatry, and worse than idolatry ? Idolaters worship God's creatures, but thou worshippest thy own creature, for God did not create irAcovcfta, If we give irXeovcfr'a and irXcovicnp the wider sense advocated
iv.
19.
The
and Wetstein, do not throw much represent all kinds of wickedness and
19, there is no difficulty. ok cxct K\r\povop.lav. As Kkrjpovop.Ca does not necessarily imply actual possession, but the title to possession, it is not necessary to say that the present is used to express the certainty of future possession. Iv tq poatXtia too Xptcrrou itai 6cou. Many expositors (Bengel, Harless, etc) argue from the absence of the article before 0coO that the words mean " the kingdom of Him who is Christ and God." But 0cd? is one of the words that do not require an article ; comp. 1 Cor. vi. 9, 10, /fao-iActav 0cov also ib. xv. 50 and 9 Gal. V. 21. See also Gal. L I, 81a lrf<rov Xpurrov #eeu 0cov irarpos Rom. xv. 8, vvtp aXrjOeias 0cov xiii. 4, 0coO StaKovo?, etc. There is in the context no dogmatic assertion about Christ, and to introduce such a prediction in this incidental way would be out of place. Nor does the apostle's language elsewhere lead us to suppose that he would thus absolutely designate Christ, God. Comp. iv. 6, "one Lord, one God." The absence of the article gives more unity to the conception ; it is not " the kingdom of Christ, and also the kingdom of God," but being the kingdom of Christ it is the kingdom of God. 6. |U)&ts dpas dira-rdTw kcpois Xoyots. Aoyot iccvot, " sermones a veritate alieni." Aeschines speaks of a decree written by Demosthenes as KCViliTtpov ru)v Xoyoiv ovs ci<$>$ Acyctv teal tov ftiov Sv ppiwK (Cont. Ctes. p. 288) ; and Plato says ri? cv wov<ri<i roiffii fidrrjv Kcvots Aoyoi? auros avrbv Koap-ol; (Lacfas. 1 69 B). To what persons do these words refer ? Grotius thinks, partly heathen philosophers, partly Jews, who thought that all Jews would
on
iv.
; :
152
[V. 7,
have part in the world to come. Meyer sees in them the unbelieving heathen, which view he supports by reference to the following words and so Eadie. But the Christians, as such, were separate from the unbelieving heathen, and the Epistle gives no reason to suppose that they would need to be warned against immoral teaching proceeding from them. Rather, we must understand persons amongst themselves who made light of sins of impurity, as too many in Christian communities still do. As Bullinger (ap. Harless) says " Erant apud Ephesios homines corrupti, ut hodie apud nos plurimi sunt, qui haec salutaria Dei praecepta cachinno excipientes obstrepunt ; humanum esse quod faciant amatores, utile quod foeneratores, facetum quod jaculatores, et idcirco Deum non usque adeo graviter animadvertere in istiusmodi lapsus." The context perfectly harmonises with this " Be not ye Christians misled into such vices, for it is just these, etc, and by falling into them ye would be (tv/a/ictoxoi with those who are in the darkness from which ye have been delivered." 8iA TauTa y<p, " for it is on account of these things " ; not this teaching, but these sins. ?pXCT<u ^ 6pyr\ too 6cou. opyrj is not to be limited to the ordinary judgments of this life, " quorum exempla sunt ante oculos (Calv.) ; nor is there reason to limit it to the wrath of God in the day of judgment (Meyer). The wrath of God will be manifested then, but it exists now.
;
: :
Do not therefore become partakers with them." ainw refers to the persons, not the sins This sharing is by some understood of sharing in (as Braune). their punishment, but by most expositors of sharing in their sins Stier combines both, and not unreasonably, since it has just been said that these sins bring punishment, and the sense naturally is Have nothing in common with them, for ye surely do not desire to share the wrath with them. 8. ^jtc ydp itot oxoVos. To fiev is quite properly absent. quote Fritzsche: "Recte ibi non ponitur, ubi aut non sequitur membrum oppositum, aut scriptores oppositionem addere nondum constituerant, aut loquentes alterius membri oppositionem quacunque de causa lectoribus non indixerunt" (Rom. x. 19, vol. ii.
7. P. 423).
Iwl toos ulous t% dirciOcias, see ii. 2. " |jrf| ovv ytycoto aupjifroxoi auiw.
^tc. The emphasis is on the time past; cf. "Troja fuit, fuimus Troes." ctkoto^. Stronger than " were in darkness." They were not only in darkness ; darkness was also in them. So vvv 8e 4&s l Kupiw. The whole nature of light was to belong to them as formerly the whole nature of darkness ; they were not only in the light, but penetrated by it, so that they themselves became " the
light of the world," Matt. v. 14.
V. 9-11]
Iv Kvpto),
153
"in fellowship with the Lord." &S rinva ûtos ircpiiraTCiTC. With rccva fatfros cf. viot airctfcta?, Alford argues from the absence of the article ver. 6 and ii. 3. before ôitos (in contrast with tov <f>urr6<;y ver. 9 and Luke xvi. 8), that " it is light as light that is spoken of." But the absence of the article is in accordance with the settled rule stated by Apollonius,
that (subject to certain qualifications)
nouns
in
regimen must have
the article prefixed to both or to neither (see Middleton,
On
the
Greek
is
Article^
iii.
x, 7
3, 6).
9. 6
yap
icapiros tou
+uto$.
The walk
to which I exhort
you
that which
becomes children of the
light, for
etc
Syr-Pesh., Chrys.
The Rec
and most
Text, has rrrf/iaros for ^wrfe, with
D K L
cursives.
4>ut6s is the reading of K 67*, It Vulg. Goth. Boh. Ann., Origen, Je :n, Jerome. It might be thought possible that <fx*r6s had come in from recollection of mujl the same word just preceding, but the figure of 'Might" governs the whole passage, and tpya Axapxa 0*67-0 vt, ver. 10, corresponds to xaprbs <fx*r6i
:
ABD*GP
Kaprbt TPttifiaTot undoubtedly came in from the parallel, Gal v. 22, where the contrast is with tpya <rap*6y, ver. 19 ; cf. 17, 18. The variation is an important one for the estimate of the character of the authorities that support the two readings respectively.
here.
" In all (i.e. every goodness and righteousness and truth," the opposites of icaKia, a6Wa, ^cvoos. dyaOuxrvvr] is not found in classical Greek, but is used by St. Paul in three other places, viz. Rom. xvi. 14 Gal. v. 22 ; 2 Thess. i. n. The use of it in the Sept. gives us little help. In Eccles., where it occurs several times, it is used for "enjoyment. " In Neh. ix. 25, 35, it is used of the goodness of God. In Ps. Iii. 3 (It. Sept.) it is "good " in general as opposed to " evil " and so in xxxviii. (xxxvii.) 20. In St. Paul it would seem to mean "goodness" in the special sense of benevolence; and thus the threefold enumeration here would correspond to that in the Gospels: "justice, mercy, and truth," and to Butler's "justice, truth, and regard to common good" (comp. Rom. v. 7). As a metaphor the expression " fruit of the light " cannot be called " strictly correct," as if it referred to the necessity of light for
i irdo-g dyaOtKruFfl xal SiKcuocruPT) Kat d\T)6cia.
of)
kind
the production of fruit, eta convey no intimation of such a

xii. 2, 1?
The words
figure.
"children of light"
10. Soicifuilorrcs ti iirnv cudpcoroi' t$ Kupiu. Compare Rom. to SoKifidfav v/xas ri to Oikrjfta tov cov, to &ya$bv kq\ tvdpOTOV KCU TfXtLOV.
Putting to the proof, partly by thought and partly by experience. and some others take the words imperatively, supplying core, as Rom. xii. 9-13 and w. 19, 20; but here between two imperaStier
tives this is less natural.
1L
icat jri)
atryicoiiwciTC tocs ?pyois dxapirotf tou ckotous.
" Have
154
[V. 19
no fellowship with." The thought joins on t# ver. 7. The verb with the dative means (like the simple kowwu*) to have fellowship or partnership with. In the sense, " to have part in a thing," it takes the genitive, cucapxot?, for vice has no jcopm. Thus Jerome: "Vitia in semet ipsa finiuntur et pereunt, virtutes
frugibus pullulant et redundant koI A^yxcTCy ra yap Kpu+rj yir6|icra 6w* afrwr 11, 12. fiaXXor xal Xlycir. aUrxp^K Kpwfn} ytvo/icva cannot be merely syn-
Am
&
onymous with Ijpya (t/cotovs, as Harless and Olshausen hold; a-Koroi and Kpwftfj are distinct notions, and pya cncorov? might be open offences. Besides, this would make Kpwfnj quite super#cal Xeyco', " even to mention." &.cyxeTc is usually taken to mean " reprove." This seems to imply reproof by words; but then the reason assigned seems strange ; they are to be reproved, because even to speak of them If the conjunction had been "although" and not is shameful "for," it would be intelligible. Hence some expositors have actually supposed that yap here means "although," which is, of course, impossible. Another view that has been taken is " rebuke them openly, for to speak of them otherwise is shameful"; but this puts too much into Xcyctv. Bengel's view is that the words assign, not the reason for c'A., but the reason of the apostle's speaking indefinitely of the vices, whilst he enumerates the virtues. This is forced, and against the emphatic position of Kpv<f>rj. Sder^s view is that the reproof is to be by the life, not by words " Ye would yourselves be sinning if ye were to name the secret vices " hence the necessity for walking in the light, that so these deeds may be reproved. But St Paul is not deterred by such scruples from speaking plainly of heathen vices when occasion required. Harless* view, that the words are connected with firj trvyic., " Do not commit these sins, for they are too bad even to mention," assumes that to, Kpwfnj yti'dymcva simply = ra ipya rov (tjcotous, which we have seen is untenable. Meyer and Eadie assign as the connexion, "By all means reprove them ; and there is the more need of this, for it is a shame even to speak of their secret sins." This seems to leave the Barry says: "In such reproof it should be difficulty unsolved. remembered that it would be disgraceful 'even to speak' in This again detail of the actual 'things done in secret'" supposes that yap assigns a reason for what is not expressed, fr ^'yx* namely, for some qualification of cAcyxT<> not at
fluous.
itself.
however, another meaning of lkiyx> very common, the object is a thing, not a person, and more particularly in connexion with derivatives of Kpwrro), viz. to expose or bring to light Artemidorus, in his interpretations of dreams,
There
is,
especially
when
V. 18]
155
when speaking of
secrets, always
those dreams which forebode the revealing of speaks of to. tcpwrra cAcyxco&u, c*g. iL 36, 17A10? airo 8v'(7ca>s liavariWuiv to. Kpvma iXty\i tw XtkrfO^ytu ookovWoiv. Polybius says iXiyxtvOai <f>acriv ras <v<rcis vtto twv vpurrd\rtay He opposes to it &wcrKOTicr0ai (p. 1383). And (p. 1382). Phavorinus defines A.cyx*>. to KtKpvfifUvov droVq/ui tivos cfc ôs ayw.
:
Cf. Aristoph. Eecles. 483.
So the substantive
6 &.eyxos= proof.
signification with that of
"convict"
is
obvious.
The connexion of this The Etym. M.
has eXcyôs ccrrtv 6 to. irpdypara fra<f>rjyi^wv . . 6 yap IX. cfc â>s ayf* ra irpay/ia-Ta. This appears to be the meaning of the verb in John iiL 20, owe Compare in the tpXCTCU irpos to ^<fc, iva /t^ IXtyxOjj ra fpya avrov. following verse, fpxTai ^P * ^*> 'va <t>ayP0)^V avrw tA ?pya. Compare also 1 Cor. xiv. 22, ^Xcyxcrai xnro wdamav . . . ra jepwrra rrp Kap3ta? avrov <f>avpa ytVcrcu. The occurrence of Kpwfnj here in the immediate context suggests that this meaning was present to the apostle's mind. Adopting it, we obtain as the interpretation Have no participation with the works of darkness, nay, rather expose them, for the things they do secretly it is a shame even to mention ; but all these things when exposed by the light are made manifest in their true character. Then follows the reason, not for 13a, but for the whole exhortation. This cAeyxF is not useless, for it leads to âyepovo-ftu, and so turns o-kotos into <*. This is Soden's interpretation. A remarkable parallel is John iiL 20, just quoted. There also epya are the object, cpyo. whose nature is o-kotos (ver. 19) ; and it is the aws which effects cAcyxtv> ver* 2
and
<fMVpovyt ver. 21. 13. to Be irdrra {Xcyx^pcwi Airo too $to$ âvepouTai* **&>
yap
The difficulty in tracing the connexion to +avpo6\i.vov 4&$ Ian. continues to be felt here. Meyer interprets: But everything ( = those secret sins) when it is reproved is made manifest by the light ; that is, by the light of Christian truth which operates in your reproof, it is brought to the light of day in its true moral character; to prove that it can only be by the light I say, by the light, for
whatever
manifest is light ; it has ceased to have the nature of darkness. Assuming, namely, " quod est in effectu (#s Am) id debet esse in causa (vtto tov ^wtos)." This is adopted by Ellicott But it is open to serious objection first, wr6 tov <j>w6s is not emphatic ; on the contrary, its position is as unemphatic as possible; secondly, cAcyxo/icva is on this view not only superfluous but disturbing ; thirdly, the assumption that what is in the effect must be in the cause, is much too recondite a principle to be silently assumed in such a discourse as this ; and, lastly, this treats oWepov/tcvov as if it were ircaWcpuyteyov. Meyer, in fact, endeavours to obtain, by the help of a hidden metaphysical assumption, the
is
:
made
156

(
[V. 14
âycpov/icvoy
same sense which Eadie and others obtain by taking

as middle
= AV.).
Ellicott adds, " whatever is illumined is light" But <avcpda> does not mean "to illumine," but to make âvcpo*. It occurs nearly fifty times in the N.T. and never = farrlfav. True, it is allied to <!><#;, but not closely, for its nearest connexion is with the stem of âivo), viz. âv, which is already far from ^ws. Again,
when
it is said by Alford (in reply to Eadie's objection that the transformation does not always take place) that, "objectively taken, it is universally true: everything shone upon is Light" (whether this tends to condemnation or not depending on whether the transformation takes place or not), this surely is just what is not true. A dark object shone upon does not become lux (the English word is ambiguous). He adds that the key text is John iii. 20, but in order to fit this in he interprets " brought into light" as "made light." Bengel, followed by Stier, takes <f>avpovfivov as middle, " quod manifestari non refugit; confer mox, cyctpat koX dvdura" [the correct reading is fyetpc] ; and on irav, " Abstractum pro concreto nam hie sermo jam est de homine ipso, colL v. seq. propterea? seem almost driven (with Eadie, after Beza, Calvin, Grotius, eta) to take âvcpov/icvov as middle, in this sense, " whatever makes manifest is light" The examples, indeed, of âvepowOai as middle, adduced by Eadie, are not quite to the point, viz. such as iifxtvepwOrj in Mark xvi. 12, where the medial sense is much more marked than in the present passage. Bleek thinks it necessary to suppose an active sense here, but he proposes to read <t>avepovv to. Oltramare interprets " All the things done in secret, when reproved, are brought into open day by the light [which is salutary], for whatever is so brought out is light" " Wherefore it is said." It is generally held that 14. Aio X^yci. this formula introduces a quotation from canonical Scripture. Here the difficulty arises that this is not a quotation from canonical Scripture. Jerome admits this, saying, "omnes editiones veterum scripturarum ipsaque Hebraeorum volumina eventilans nunquam hoc scriptum reperi." He therefore suggests that it is from an apocryphal writing ; not that the apostle accepted such a writing as authoritative, but that he quoted it as he has quoted He, at the same time, mentions others who supposed Aratus, eta the words to be spoken by the apostle himself under inspiration. Many moderns, however, think that the original text is Isa, be. 1, " Arise, shine, for thy light is come, and the glory of the Lord is risen upon thee," the words being, it is said, quoted, not verbally, but in essence. It would be more correct to say that the resemblance is verbal rather than in essence; for the differences are The very word 6 Xpioros is fatal to the idea of a important.
We
V. 14]
157
Alford, indeed, says that it is a necessary inference quotation. from the form of the citation (viz. 6 Xp.) that St Paul is citing the language of prophecy in the light of the fulfilment of prophecy, which obviously assumes the point in question. It is said, moreover, that no surprise can be felt at finding Christ substituted for the Lord (Jehovah) of the O.T., and the true Israel for Jerusalem. True if the question were of the application of words from the
:
5, or of interpretation added to the quota6-8. Moreover, the words here are not addressed to the Church (6 KatfcvSw), they seem rather addressed either to recent converts or to those who do not yet believe. And, further, there is nothing in Isaiah about awaking from sleep or arising from the dead (though Alford asserts the contrary) ; nor is the idea, "shall give thee light,' at all the same as Isaiah's, "the M glory of the Lord has risen upon thee. Hence other commentators find it necessary to suppose a reference to other passages either separately or combined with this, viz. Isa. ix. 2, xxvi. 19, lii. 1. Such conjectures, in fact, refute themselves ; for when the words of a prophet are so completely changed, we can no longer speak of a quotation, and Aiyci would be quite out of place. Nor can we overlook the fact that the point of the connexion seems to lie in the word ciriâwrei. Others have adopted Jerome's suggestion as to an apocryphal source, some even going so far as to suggest the actual name of the book, Epiphanius naming the Prophecy of Elijah; George Syncellus, a book of Jeremiah ; the margin of Codex G, the Book of Enoch. It is hardly sufficient to allege against this view that Alyct always introduces a quotation from canonical Scripture. But b Xprro5 is inconsistent with the idea of an O.T. apocryphon, and apart from that the whole expression has a Christian
O.T., as in tion, as in
Pet
iii.
Rom.
xi.
stamp.
Meyer endeavours to reconcile the assertion that Xcyci introduces a citation from canonical Scripture with the fact that this is not such a citation, by the supposition that by a lapse of memory the apostle cites an apocryphon as if it were canonical But was St Paul's knowledge of the Scriptures so imperfect that he did not know, for example, that the promised deliverer is never in the O.T. distinctly called 6 Xpioros ? Others conjecture that it may be a saying of Christ Himself that is quoted. The use of 6 Xpioro? in the third person is not inconsistent with this ; nor, again, the fact that St Paul does not elsewhere quote the sayings of Christ Why might he not do it once ? But it is impossible to supply 6 Xpwrros or 'Iiyo-cw as a subject without something to suggest it It is too forced to meet
this
by taking
<f>ws
as the subject.
The
difficulties
disappear
when we
recognise that Aiycc need
"
158
[V. 14
not be taken to mean 6 Oeos Ay, an assertion which has been in iv. 8 to be untenable. It means "it says," or "it is said," and the quotation may probably be from some liturgical formula or hymn, a supposition with which its rhythmical charThat the words were suggested originally acter agrees very well by Isa. lx. i may be admitted. Theodoret mentions this opinion
shown
rives 8e rutv pp.rfvVTwv Z<t>a<rav irvcvfiariKrjs \dptTOS duaOivras tivo.%
^raXftov? (rvyypai/rou,
referring to
Cor.
xiv.
vi.
26.
He
seems to
have taken
Srjkov ovv
this
on
197), who concludes iv ivi tovtojv tS>v irvevfiaTiKwv ipaXftwv ijroi irpocrtv)(u>v
from Severianus (Cramer^
(compare also Origen in the Catena^ a similar view, but endeavours to save the supposed limitation of the use of Ac'yei by saying that in the Church the Spirit speaks. As there are in the Church prophets and proKiro tovto o tfivripovcwrw
/#.).
Stier adopts
phetic speakers and poets, so there are liturgical expressions and hymns which are holy words. Comparing w. 18, 19, Col. iii. 16, it may be said that the apostle is here giving us an example of this self-admonition by new spiritual songs. The view that the words are from a liturgical source is adopted by Barry, Ewald, Braune, v. Soden, the last-mentioned suggesting (after some older writers) that they may have been used in the Compare 1 Tim. iii. 16, which is not reception after baptism. improbably supposed to have a similar source.
is the reading of a decisive preponderance of authorities, apparently all uncials, fyetpcu being found only in cursives. In the other places where the word occurs (Matt. ix. 5; Mark ii. 9, 11, iii. 3, v. 41 ; Luke v. 23 ; John v. 8), h/apc is likewise supported by preponderant authority, a third variation iyelpov occurring in some places. Fritzsche on Mark ii. 9 has ably defended the propriety of tyeipe, which is not to be understood either as active for middle or as if ecavrbv were understood, but as a " formula excitandi," " Up " like d-ye, twety* (Eurip Orest 789). So % in Eurip. /ph. Aul. 624, (yap d5f\<prjs i<p' vjiiraior efrrvxus ; and Aristoph. Man. 340, tyeipe <p\oy4a.i \afiwddat ep X P(T^ Tird<r<r(av. This use yei/xu, says Fritzsche, would mean is limited to the single form tycipc. ' * excita mihi aliquem. &v&rra for d*dffnj0i = Acts xii. 7. This short form is also found in Theocritus and Menander. Compare xardpa, Mark xv. 30 (in some MSS. including C), and drdfia, Apoc. iv. I.
fycipc
GKLP,
KABD
iri<f>av<ri from c?riâixrica>, which kcu îrtâuoci aoi 6 Xpurnfc. is found several times in Job (Sept.) ; D* d e and MSS. mentioned by Chrysostom and by Jerome read firiu/awms rov Xptarov.
relates that he heard some one disputing in the church, in order to please the people with something new, saying that this was said with reference to Adam, who was buried on Calvary, and that when the Lord on the Cross hung above his grave, the prophecy was fulfilled, "Rise Adam, who sleepest, and rise from the dead and Christ shall touch thee, cViâvo-ci," ue. that by the touch of Christ's body and blood he
Jerome (quoted by Tisch.)
"
V. 15, 16]
GENERAL EXHORTATION
159
should be brought to life. This story probably indicates how this reading arose. 15-91. General exhortation to regulate their conduct with wisdom, to make their market of the opportunity\ ana\ avoiding riotous indulgence, to express their joy and thankfulness in spiritual songs.
15. pXlircrc our dicpi0ws ir&$ ircpiirctTCtTt.
This is the reading of K* B 17 and some other mss., Origen, and probwith most mss., Vulg. ably Chrys. But wQt d*/>t/9s, K* Chrysostom has dxpc/Kfo rut in Syr. (both) Arm., Theodoret, Jerome, etc text and comment, but in the latter vws d*/x/9t3f occurs presently after, also /9\^rcre vu>% TcptvareTre. As wtas dtp. is the common later reading, it is probable that its occurrence in the second place in the comm. is due to a The variation in the original text may have arisen from an copyist of Chrys. after -/bus (it is actually om. in Eth.), it being accidental omission of In Eadie's comment ed, 2, rQt is there inserted in the wrong place.
ADGKLP,
wm
similarly
om.
resumptive, " to return to our exhortation." Some, howan inference from what immediately precedes, viz. " since ye are enlightened by Christ " (Ewald, Braune) ; but as the substance of the exhortation is clearly the same as in w. 8-10, it is unnecessary to look on this as an inference from ver. 14. Harless follows Calvin, who says : " Si aliorum discutere tenebras fideles debent fulgore suo, quanto minus caecutire debent in proprio vitae institute ?" But this would seem to require an emphatic avroL On dffot/fto? compare Acts xxvi. 5, Kara r^v hcpip<rrdrriv alptaw. As wcpMrarctTc is a fact, the indicative is correctly used, and is exactly parallel to 1 Cor. iii. 11, ckooto? fiXttriro) irws iTroiKQ&ofjLtu Most commentators expound the other reading. Fritzsche's view of this has been generally adopted (Opuscula9 p.
oZv
is
ever, regard this as
209 n.),
viz.
that
dirigere," the
d#cp. wcp. = " tanquam ad regulam et amussim vitam whole meaning irws to d#cpi/ft>5 ipydr6t = " videte
quomodo circumspecte vivatis h. e. quomodo illud efficiatis, ut provide vivatis." He exposes the fallacy of Winer's contention (subsequently abandoned), that the words were a concise expression
for jSAcircre vCte wepMraTciTc, 8ci o v/ias OKpiftux ircptiraTctv.
He
thinks the reading dicpiPw irS* was a correction on the part of those who, being familiar with cue. /ft.circtv, ci&vcu, etc., were offended with euro. ircpnrarcty, which is, he says, most suitable to
this place.
acroôi, explaining ttcu?, and so dependent, hence the subjective negation (Winer, 55. vepiTraToCWfs need not be supplied.
jif)
us
like
1).
it,
on
)8AircTc,
Then
16. iiayopal6^voi
tcW
iccupoV.
full
"Seizing
the
opportunity,
this life "
" making your market to the
from the opportunity of
(Ramsay, St. Paul as Traveller^ etc, p. 149). The same expression is used in CoL iv. 5 with special reference to conduct
: ;
160
[V. 17, 18
towards those outside the Church, iv cro<f>ia irfpiiraTctrc wpo? rove $a>. tov #c. cây. Lit. " buying up for yourselves, " i$ being intensive, and corresponding to our " up." itaipov v/acis ayopacrc occurs Dan. ii. 8, but in a different sense, viz. " wish to gain time." More parallel as to sense is iccpoavrcov to irapov, Antonin. vi. 26. cayopa(a>, in the sense "Buy up," is found in Polyb. iii. 42. 2, irjy6pa(rc trap avrwv to* rt p.ovo$v\a irkola iravra, k.t.A. In Afarf, " buy off," 81a /uas upas Polye. 2 it has the wholly different sense Chrysostom says the expresrrfv alvvLov Kokacnv cayopa6/Acvoi. sion is obscure, and he illustrates it by the case of robbers entering a rich man's house to kill him, and when he gives much to purchase his life, we say that he ifrrrfopao-w iavrov. So, he proceeds, " thou hast a great house, and true faith ; they come on thee to take all give whatever one asks, only save to KcoSaAaiov, that is -rqv irurrtv." This completely ignores tov tcaipov. Oecum. is more to the point
:
#c.
ovk ioriv
fjfuv ficftaios
dyopacrov ovv avrbv
teal
irotrjo'ov
So Theodore Mops., and so Severianus in Catena, adding that "the present opportunity SouXcvci toU irovrjpoU, buy it up, therefore, so as to use it for piety." But it is futile to press the
IStov.
idea of "purchasing," or the force of c, so as to inquire from whom the opportunity is to be bought, as "from evil men" (Bengel, cf. Severianus, above), " the devil," Calvin ; or what price is to be paid (ra iravTa, Chrys.). The price is the pains and effort
required.
oti at ^filpai ironfjpai riair. So that it is the more necessary tov Ktupov i(ay. The moments for sowing on receptive soil in such
days being few, seize them when they offer themselves. "morally evil," not "distressful" (Beza, Hammond, etc.), an idea foreign to the context, which contrasts the walk of the Christians with that of the heathen. Viz. because it is necessary to walk ajcpt/ftus. 17. 01A touto. ci yap co-c<r^ a<6povc? axpi/?<os ov Wpt7raTTj<rT, Schol. ap. Cat. Not " because the days are evil," which was only mentioned in support of cfay. tov tcaipov. jif) yiycafo etypoves. "Do not show yourselves senseless."
evil
irovT)paC is
d<f>p<Dv differs
from
ao*oa>o?
as referring rather to imprudence or folly
in action.
s So K eta Rec. has (rwtcWe?, 17, 67 and most mss., It Vulg. Syr-Pesh. while D* G have oWovtc?, which Meyer, with little reason, prefers as the less
dXXa owtcTc.
with
D EKL
c
ABP
usual form.
Somewhat
stronger
than
yivdkriccTc,
"understand."
to
0Ai)fio, cf. ver. 10.
18. Kal fif) ficOuvKco^c oTkw. KaC marks a transition from the general to the particular, as in <Wr toU fiadrfraU avrov teal T<g UtTpy, Mark xvi. 7 ; iraVa rj TovSata X<*>pa., Kal ol 'IcpOToAv/urat,
V. 18]
GENERAL EXHORTATION
5.
is
l6l
Fritzsche, in the latter place, remarks that teal in these not = " imprimis," but " scriptores rem singularem jam comprehensam communion propterea insuper adjiciunt copulae adjumento, quod illam tanquam gravem impensius inculcatam volunt lectori." It is out of the question to suppose any reference here to such abuses as are mentioned in 1 Cor. xL, which would have called for
Mark L
instances
a more
iv
explicit censure.
<
ianv dawrio, iv <p, not olvif, but fu$wrK<rOtu otvip. aonma, "a word in which heathen ethics said much more than they intended or knew," Trench. It is the character of the aowo? " perditus," thus denned by Aristotle tovs cuc/xircfc *at cfe ajcokacriav SairavTjpov^ d<rwrojs koXov/ack (Eth. Nic. iv. l). In classical authors the adjective varies in sense between "lost" and "prodigal," the latter, "qui servare nequit," being the more common. The substantive occurs also Tit L 6; 1 Pet iv. 4; and the adverb Luke xv. 13, where see note. The Vulg. renders by "luxuria, luxuriose," words which in later Latin acquired the sense of profligate living. In mediaeval Latin " luxuria " = " lasciviousness." But the meaning in the N.T. is clearly "dissoluteness." The remark of Clem. Alex., to atrwrrov ti}? fUOrp &a rrj9 acrariaf atvtâ/icvos, was natural to a Christian writer accustomed to the technical use of o-wtciy, but no such idea seems implied in the use cfowos is not derived from crc&fo but from of the word in N.T.
:
<r6ta
(Horn.
//. ix.
393, 424, 681).
dXXd irXi)pouo0c iv irmiSf&aTi. The antithesis is not directly between olvos and irvtvpa, as the order of the words shows, but between the two states. Meyer remarks that the imperative passive is explained by the possibility of resistance ; but what other form could be employed? The signification is middle, for they must co-operate. The present tense cannot very well be expressed in the English rendering; "be filled" is after all better than " become filled," which would suggest that the filling had vet to fr nrevfum is usually understood of the Holy Spirit, iv begin, being instrumental (Meyer), or both instrumental and expressing But the use the content of the filling (Ellicott, Macpherson, a/.). of Iv with irkrjpow to express the content with which a thing is filled would be quite unexampled. Phil iv. 19 is not parallel (Ellicott admits it to be doubtful); still less Col. ii. 10, iv. 12 (where, morePlutarch's hrarXfaoro over, the true reading is ir*irXripo<t>oprijLvoi). cv (iAxapiorriTi (Plac. Phil, i. 7. 9) is not parallel ; the words there (which are used of the Deity) mean " is complete in blessedness," the alternative being "something is wanting to Him." Meyer, indeed, says that as St. Paul uses genitive, diative, and accusative (CoL L 9) with 7rAiypow, we cannot be surprised at his using Jv, The genitive and dative are both classical ; the singular argument
xx
62
[V.
19
accusative in CoL L 9 is not accusative of material. But such variety in no way justifies the use of cv, the meaning of which is wholly unsuitable to the idea " filled with." The nearest approach to this would be the instrumental sense (adopted by Meyer, a/., in L 23). Where the material is only regarded as the means of making full, it may conceivably be spoken of as an instrument ; but this would require the agent to be expressed, and, besides, would be quite inappropriate to the Holy Spirit For these reasons the rendering mentioned in the margin RV. (Braune's also) is not to be hastily rejected. " Be filled in spirit," not in your carnal part, but in your spiritual Alford attempts to combine both ideas, "let this be the region in, and the ingredient with which you are filled," wvcvfjucL being the Christian's "own spirit dwelt in and informed by the Holy Spirit of God." This seems an impossible combination, or rather confusion of two distinct ideas. Macpherson, in order to secure a contrast between the "stimulation of much wine and the stimulation of a large measure of the Spirit," represents the apostle as saying, "conduct yourselves like those that are possessed, but see to it that the influence constraining you is that of the Holy Spirit" It is hardly too much to say that this is a reductio ad absurdum of the supposed antithesis. There is nothing about excitement, nor does St Paul anywhere sanction
such conduct
19. XoXooktcs iaurois.
On
lavrottAAAijXoic, see
iv.
3a.
Not
"to yourselves," AV.; "meditantes vobiscum," Michaelis. Compare Pliny's description, " carmen thristo quasi Deo dicere secum invicem" {kavroii) {Epp. x. 97). But the reference cannot be specially to religious services, as the context shows; c CoL
iii.
16.
faXpots nal tyteoif xal cgf&ais nvcup&Tucais CoL iii. 16, except that the copulas are there wanting. The distinction between these words is not quite agreed upon. âAfufc from âAXctv, primarily
the plucking of the strings, is used by classical authors to mean the sound of the harp, and hence any strain of music. The SchoL on Aristoph. Aves9 218, says: âA/ios Kvpuix, 6 rr/9 KiOapas VXP* Cyrilli Zex. and Basil on Ps. xxix. define it : XAyos /iovcruc<fc, Sray tvpvdfJLws Kara tovs apfioviKovs Xoyovs irpbs rb opyavov icpovcrai. And to the same effect Greg. Nyss. It occurs frequently in the Sept, not always of sacred music, e.g. 1 Sam. xvL 18 of young David, cl&ra roy i/raXfuJv, />. playing on the harp. v/uro is properly a song of praise of some god or hero. Arrian says : v/iwh jikv rovs Otovs iroiovvrai, hraxvot i\ &vOpirow (Exped. Alex. iv. 11. 3). Augustine's definition is well known " Oportet ut, si sit hymnus, habeat haec tria, et laudem, et Dei, et canticum." Hence vfivtv9 to praise by a hymn.
ySi^
from
<US<u, Sco,
seems to have
originally
meant any kind
V. 30, 21]
GENERAL EXHORTATION
63
of song, but was specially used of lyric poetry. It is frequently used in Sept (Ex. xv. 1 ; Deut xxxL 19-22 ; Judg. v. 1, 12, etc.).
rptvpariKM is omitted by B d e, and bracketed by Lachmann. Not only by superabundant authority, but it seems essential as a further Probably it is to be taken (as by definition of the preceding word or words. # Hofmann and Soden) with all three. 4r is prefixed to ifrdk/wts in B P 17 s Vulg., Jerome, and admitted to the margin fay WH, After Twtvft. A 67 ,
is it attested
adds 4w xipiTt, clearly from CoL

aT&orrcs Ral
iii 16.
+dXXoKTt$ rg nop&if up*K if KvpUf,
most ms&, Syr-HarcL Arm., while Rec. has to before rp *., with rait xapdlaut, with fePADGP, It Vulg. Boh. Syr-Pesh. Lachm. reads Hard mg. But K* B have the singular without 4w, and so Origen. In CoL iii. 16 all MSS. have h, and most MSS. and Vss. the plural, reading the singular.
KL
DKL
tq Kap&iq. as meaning "heartily or Chiysostom interprets sincerely"; /urk owierew irpoo-exoKrcs, ie. from the heart, not merely with the mouth. But this would be he rfc KapKas without
20. cAxafMorouKTcs irdrron dirp Tcdtmtv. "Even," says Chrysostom, "if it be disease or poverty. It is nothing great or wonderful What is sought is that when if when prosperous you give thanks. Nay, why speak of afflictions here ? we in affliction you do so. must thank God for hell," explaining that we who attend are much benefited by the fear of hell, which is placed as a bridle upon us a profoundly selfish view, to which he was no doubt led only by the wish to give the fullest meaning to iravrwv. Jerome is more sober: " Christianorum virtus est, etiam in his quae adversa But St Paul is not specially putantur, referre gratias creatori." referring to adversity ; on the contrary, the context shows that what he had particularly in his mind was occasion of rejoicing. Theodoret, however, takes wdvrw as masc, that we must thank God for others who have received Divine blessing. But there is nothing in the context to favour this. When I speak of 4V oVtfpan tou Kuptou ^ji*>k 'l<naou Xpurroo. doing something in the name of another, this may mean either that I do it as representing him, that is, by his authority, or if the action is entirely my own, that I place its significance only in its When an apostle commands in the name of reference to him. Christ, this is in the former sense ; when I pray or give thanks in
the same name, it is as His disciple and dependent on Him. t$ ecu nal riaTpi, see L 3. There is no need to refer irarpt here to Cnrist ; the article rather leads to the sense, " God, who is also the Father," namely, of us. 81. diroTCurorfjKKoi dXX^Xois iv +40? Xpwrroa.
XpurroQ with
ABLP,
Vulg. Syr. (both) Boh. etc.
most cursives, and D has XpurroQ 'lrpov ; G,' ltpov XpurroQ.
OeoO of Rec. is in As <p6pot XpurroQ
64
is

not found elsewhere, copyists naturally wrote
<f>6pos
[V. 21
OeoD, which
was
familiar.
"In the fear of Christ," />. with reference for Him as the guiding motive. " Submitting yourselves." The connexion of this with the preced" the first three [clauses] Ellicott says ing seems rather loose. name three duties, more or less specially in regard to God, the last a comprehensive moral duty in regard to man" suggested by the thought of the humble and loving spirit which is the principle of *vx*pHTTia. This does not meet the difficulty of the connexion. Alford refers back to // fudvo-K., "not blustering, but being subject," and Eadie is inclined to the same view ; but this is forced, and requires us to interpolate something which is not indicated by anything in the text Much the same may be said of Findlay's view. He illustrates by reference to the confusion in the Church meetings in the Corinthian Church (i Cor. xiv. 26-34), "when he urges the Asian Christians to seek the full inspiration of the Spirit, and to give free utterance in song to the impulses of their new life, he adds this word of caution." This supplies too much, and besides, wrorao-o-o/icvoi would be an unsuitable word to express such readiness to give way in the matter of prophesying as St Paul directs in 1 Cor. Bloomfield, taking a similar view, supposes that what is insisted on is subordination to a leading authority. This preserves the sense of vttot., but not of dXXrjkois. Blaikie
:
back to ver. 15. In considering the connexion it must be borne in mind that inrorao-owflc in the next verse is in all probability not genuine, so There is that the verb has to be supplied from im-oracra-ofuvot. therefore no break between w. 21 and 22. Further, the whole following section, which is not a mere digression, depends on the thought expressed in this clause of which it is a development To suppose a direct connexion with irkripov<r$ h irv. does not yield a suitable sense. The connexion with the preceding context is, in
refers
only in form, that with what follows is in substance. From 32 we have a series of precepts expressed in imperatives and participles depending on yivr0c, wcporaTciTc ; cWi/uLafoirc?, i$ayopaVer. 18 interrupts the series by a direct im{dficvoc, AaAotWcs. perative, as in w. 3 ff., 1 2 ff. St. Paul elsewhere (Rom. xii. 9) carries on in participles a series of precepts begun in a different
fact,
iv.
construction, diroanryowrcs to vovripov, k.t.A. It is therefore quite natural that here, where the participles AoXowrcs, cvgap., though not put for imperatives, yet from their connexion involve
a command, he should make the transition to the new section easy by continuing to use the participle. Comp. 1 Pet ii. 18, Meyer admits that it is no objection to this that in what iii. 1. follows we have only the wrorof of the wives, while the vrraxoij of
V. 28]
SPECIAL INJUNCTIONS
vi.
165
the children and servants in ch.

viroraxra'.
;
for in classical writers also, after the prefixing of
cannot be connected with such
absolute nominatives which refer collectively to the whole, often But he thinks that the discourse passes over to one part only. in that case al ywaucc? would necessarily have a special verb corIt is not easy to see the force of this. relative with wot. 22-33. Special injunctions to husbands and wives. Wives to be subject to their husbands, husbands to love their wives. This relationship is illustrated by that of Christ and the Church. As Christ is the Head of the Church, which is subject to Christ, so the husband
head of the wife, who is to be subject to the husband; and Christ's love for the Church is to be the pattern of the man's love for his wife. The analogy, indeed, is not perfect, for Christ is not
is the
only the
here.
Head of the Church which is His body, but is also the Saviour of it; but this does not affect the purpose of the comparison
22. ot yomiKes tois 18101s &vhpd*ri.v 6s tw Kupiw. So without a verb B, Clement (when citing w. 2 1-2 5), Jerome's Greek MSS. His note is, " Hoc quod in Latinis exemplaribus additum est subditae ototootco-pWoi' is added sint, in Graecis Codd. non habetur." after oVopoW in 17 al. Vulg. Goth. Arm. Boh. etc., and woroWco-0c in Clement (when citing ver. 22 only). most mss., Syr. (both), Chrys. G also have wrorao-o-co^c, but after Lachmann adopted OTorao-o-co-oWai', but later critical ywatkec. The testimony of Jerome, who editors read without the verb. knew of no Greek MSS. with the verb, is very important No reason can be imagined for its omission if it had been in the text originally, whereas the reason for its insertion is obvious, and was " adjectum, ut apparet, quo et sensus stated even by Erasmus sit lucidior, et capitulum hoc separatim legi queat, si res ita The latter reason is particularly to be noted. The postulet" diversity in the MSS. which have the verb is also of weight. The shorter reading agrees well with the succinct style of St. Paul in his practical admonitions. t8tW is more than a mere possessive, yet does not imply an antithesis to " other men " ; it seems rather to emphasise the relationship, as in the passage quoted from Stobaeus by Harless (FloriL cavu) 17 UvOayopiKTj <lXo<to<os ipumjBtura ri irpwroy trj p. 22 ) ywaxKi to t ioYw, tyy, apio-K tw avSpi Compare also Acta Thomae, p. 24 (ed. Thilo) ovtux c! o>s trokvv ypovav avfiPtuxraxra ru> iBuo avSpL That the word was not required to prevent misconception of dvSpda-i is shown by its absence in the parallel, Col. iii. 18. a* tu Kvpta), not " as to their lord," which would have been expressed in the plural, but "as to the Lord Christ," "as" not meaning in the same manner as, but expressing the view they are to take of their submission ; compare vi. 6, 7. " Subjectio quae ab
:
KAP
KL
66

ipsi
[V. 28,
24
uxore praestatur viro simul praestatur

Bengel.
So Chrysostom: Srav
vuBtodau
vn-cticgs
av&pl,
Domino, Christo," <fc rf Kv/>fy
SouAcvoixra rjyov
S3. cri dn^p ion KeâXf) tt)s yuwuitos. Assigns the reason of The article before ayjjp in Rec. has no uncial d* T<3 Kvpup. " husband is head of his wife. 19 authority in its favour. As Kai, "as also." Compare i Cor. xi. 3, muro? avSpbs y K<fxx\rj 6 Xpurrds com, K<fxx\rj 8c ywaucos 6 avyp, *caA^ Si tou X/xotov 6 0CO&, A Xpurros ncâXi) -rijs cJdtXTjofos o$ts aurrijp tou aiSfie>TOS.
Rec. has U afrfe eon 0-., with M*Dte most mss., Syr. (both) But the shorter reading is that of M*ABD*G, Vulg. The added words are an obvious gloss. Boh. has Wi without *ai, and Aeth. nai without 4m.
KLP
Arm.
The apostle having compared the headship of the husband to that of Christ, could not fail to think how imperfect the analogy was; he therefore emphatically calls attention to the point of man is the head of his wife, even difference ; as if he would say : " as Christ also is head of the Church, although there is a vast difference, since He is Himself the Saviour of the body, of which
He is the head ; but notwithstanding this difference," etc. Calvin already proposed this view " Habet quidem id peculiare Christus, quod est servator ecclesiae; nihilominus sciant mulieres, sibi maritos praeesse, Christi exemplo, utcunque pari gratia non polleant" So Bengel concisely: "Vir autem non est servator uxoris; in eo Christus excellit; hinc sed sequitur." Chrys. Theoph. and Oecum., however, interpret this clause as equally applicable to the husband. <u yap fj iccâAq rov o-w/taro? (rwrrjpia cWcy, Chrys. And more fully Theoph. wrirtp kqX 6 X/motos t^s IkkXtjo-uk &v K<fxx\Tqy wpovotirat avnp #ccu cruder ovro) rolvw ical 6 dn/p, o-wrijp rov irws ow owe o<c\ct viroTacratafjuiTos avrovy rovrcaTi rrJ9 ywaucos. <TcrOai TQ K<f>aX'Q to (TtDfia, tiJ irpovoovfUvy kox <ru>owrQ. So Hammond and many others. But avro* cannot refer to any subject but that which immediately precedes, viz. 6 Xpurm. Moreover, to use o-wfta without some qualification for the wife would be unintelligible; nor is oxonjp ever used in the N.T. except of Christ or God. 94. dAAd As ^ *KitXT)aia uiroTdaircTai t$ Xpurrw, outms ko1 at There is much difference of opinion as to yurakKcs Tots di^pdaiK. Olshausen takes it as introthe force to be assigned to dAAd. ducing the proof drawn from what precedes ; and similarly De Wette, " But (aber) if the man is your head," a sense which dAAd (which is not = 8c) never has. Eadie gives the word "an antithetic reference," such as dAAd sometimes has after an implied He interprets " do not disallow the marital headship, negative. dAAd, but," etc. He refers for for it is a divine institution,
: :
:
V. 85, 26]
this use of
1
SPECIAL INJUNCTIONS
&\\& to Luke viL
167
Cor.
vi. 8, ix. 12.
The
7 ; John vii. 49 ; Rom. iii. 31, viiL 37 fact that in most of these cases we might
not incorrectly render " Nay," or " Nay, on the contrary," shows unlike the present passage they are. Nor are 2 Cor. viii. 7, xiil 4; 1 Tim. L 15, 16, or the other passages which he cites, at all parallel ; and the negative to which he supposes 6XXd to refer ("do not disallow," etc) is not even hinted at in the text His objection to the interpretation here adopted is that it sounds like a truism. Harless and others take aXXa to be simply resumptive but the main thought has not been interrupted, and there is no Hofmann, like Eadie, reason for rejecting its adversative force. reads into the text an objection which AAAa repels, "but even where the husband is not this (namely, a owiyp roO \, making happy his wife, as Christ the Church), yet," etc. The view here preferred is adopted by Meyer, Alford, EUicott, Braune, Moule, etc. cV vurrL It is presupposed that the authority of die husband is in accordance with their relation as corresponding to that of u fc cvo*e/?ri vofioOerwv vyxxrrefcuce rb br Christ to the Church. warn," Theodoret
how
K A D# G P
ISlois is
Cxrrtp of the Rec. is the reading of 17 67* etc (B omits.)

It oas clearly
D" K L and most mss.
but At,
17 67s.
pefixed to drtpdai* by AD*KLP, Vss., but om. by been introduced from ver. 22.
KBD*G
25. el &K&pc$, dyoir&TC t^s ywHUKOQ.

Rec. adds tavrto, with giving the whole passage) omit
DKL, Svr. etc. G adds tofi&w.
but
KAB
17,
Qem. (when
ica0ws koI 6 Xpurr^s, k.t.X.
" Si omnia rhetorum argumenta in
unum conjicias, non tarn persuaseris conjugibus dilectionem mutuam quam hie Paulus" (Bugenhagen). Meyer also well
" It is impossible to conceive a more lofty, more ideal regulation of married life, and yet flowing immediately from the living depth of the Christian consciousness, and, therefore, capable of practicable application to all concrete relations." Chrysostom's comment is very fine " Hast thou seen the measure of obedience? hear also the measure of love. Wouldst thou that thy wife should obey thee as the Church doth Christ ? have care thyself for her, as Christ for the Church; and if it should be needful that thou shouldest give thy life for her, or be cut to pieces a thousand times, or endure anything whatever, refuse it not; yea, if thou hast suffered this thou hast not done what Christ did, for thou doest this for one to whom thou wert already united, but He for her who rejected Him and hated Him ... He brought her to His feet by His great care, not by threats nor fear nor any such thing ; so do thou conduct thyself towards thy wife." 20. Zko aM\v AyufoQ aaOopuras t$ Xoutd^ tou Joaros lv ^pan.
observes
:
:
68

of eavrov
irafrcoWci',
it
[V. 26
The immediate purpose

clearly not to
ver. 25.
ayuurp
is
be limited to " consecration " ;

or infusion of holiness.
It
sanctification
sins.
is
includes the actual the positive side,
KaBapla-a^ expressing the negative, the purification
from her former
But as the remoter object is Iva mpaorfrni, the ceremonial Logically, idea of ayutfav appears to be the prominent one here.
precedes dyia'ctv, chronologically they are coincident Cor. vi. II, 6\XXa dircAovo-ao-0c, dXAA iyyia<r%r. The tense of KoOapura? by no means requires the translation " after He had purified " (cf. L 9), which would probably have been expressed by a passive participle agreeing with avnjv, indeed Ka6ap%itiv would have been quite inappropriate. Tf XovrpQ T.. if. " By the bath of water," distinctly referring to baptism, and probably with an allusion in Xovrpw to the usual bath of the bride before the marriage; the figure in the immediate context being that of marriage. The first question is as to the connexion. By fa/jiMTi. Augustine the phrase is supposed to qualify n2 kovrpy rov vS. t " accedit verbum ad elementum et fit sacramentum." But as the combination is strange, and neither to Xovrpov nor to v&up can form with cv prjpan a single notion (like 17 Trams tv Xp.), this would require the article to be repeated. The interpretation, " the bath resting on a command " (Storr, Peile, Klopper), Meyer, following Jerome, connects would require p. Xpurrov, the words with ayuun/, " having purified with the bath of water, may sanctify her by the word." The order of the words is strongly against this, and, besides, we should expect some addition to KaOap. y which should suggest the spiritual signification of " purifying with water." It is therefore best connected with icafapura?. But as to the meaning ? Alford, Eadie, Ellicott, Meyer take prfpua. to mean the gospel or preached word taught preliminary to baptism, prjfw. is, no doubt, used in this sense (not in Acts x. 37 but) Rom. x. 17, prjfjua, Xpurrov ; but there it is defined by Xpurrov, as in ver. 8 by rrjs TTMrrcaw ; indeed, prjpxi is there used, not because of any special Elsewhere we appropriateness, but for the sake of the quotation. have pypja. cov, Eph. vi 1 7. It is far, indeed, from being correct to say that "the* gospel" is "the usual meaning of the Greek term," as Eadie states, referring, in addition to the passages mentioned above, to Heb. vi. 5 (where the words are 0cou prjfm) Acts X. 44, to. prjpjara ravra: xi. 14, \a\rfcrci prjpara iryxfc or. In these last two places it is obvious that pypara means simply "words" or "sayings," as in Acts xxvi. 25, where St Paul says of his speech before FestUS, oUijflcuw #cai o-vtQpoorvqs prjpara diro^0cy~
tfafapttcu'
I
cf.
yofuxt.
to say that
See also Acts ii. 14, Ivnofrio-aa-Ot Ta prjpxvrd pov. Needless ftpa is used of single sayings very frequently. There
V. 27]
SPECIAL INJUNCTIONS
169
fnjfia is
may be even irovrjpbv prj/w. or &pybv ffipa (not to mention cases where used for "a thing mentioned " see on Luke L 65). That
:
the word is most frequently used, not to signify a Divine or sacred saying, but where the connexion implies such a saying, is simply a result of the fact that there was little occasion (in the Epp. none) There is no example of pfjl"1 by itself to refer to other ^para. meaning " the gospel " or anything like this. Had it the article here, indeed, there would be good reason for maintaining this
interpretation.
The Greek commentators understand fnjfm of the formula of baptism. irocq>; says Chrysostom, iv M/mrt rov Harpbs kcu. rov Ylov kcu rov aytov Uvcv/iaros. It is true, as Estius remarks, that if this were the sense we should expect k prjfWTi. But although "of water and ffifui" might, perhaps, have been expected, is quite admissible ; compare ivhrayytkufr vL 2. The objections from the absence of the article, and from the fact that (njim has not elsewhere this meaning, fall to the ground when we consider that it is not alleged or supposed that prjfm of itself means the formula of baptism ; it retains its indefinite meaning, and it is only the connexion with the reference to baptism in the preceding words that defines what fnjfm is intended. So Soden. Moule renders, "attended by, or conditioned by, an utterance," which would agree well with this interpretation. He explains it as " the revelation of salvation embodied in the name of the Father, the Son, and Holy Ghost." Macpherson denies the reference to baptism, and thinks it more natural to speak of the cleansing as effected by the bathing ("washing," AV.) rather than in the bath, especially as "of water" is added. "The reference is most probably to the bath of the bride before marriage." Yes, such a reference there is ; but what is it which the reader is expected to compare with the bridal bath ? As there is no particle of comparison,, the words imply that there is a Xovrpov uSaw, which is compared to the bath. And surely baptism could not fail to be suggested by these words to the original readers. As to kovrpov, besides the meaning "water for bathing," it has the two senses of the English " bath," viz. the place for bathing and the action ; but it does not mean "washing." 27. tea irapaorôj) afrfe Jaur^ K.T.X. The remoter object of irapc&ojca' depending on dyiaa-p, eta The verb is used, as in 2 Cor. xi. 2, of the presentation of the bride to the bridegroom, wapOivov ayvrpr irapaorfja'tu T<j> XpcoTuL The interpretation, " present as an ottering" (Harless), is opposed to the context as well as avrds is the correct reading, and inconsistent with cavrui emphasises the fact that it is Christ who, as He gave Himself to sanctify the Church, also presents her to Himself. This presenta-
; :
170
tion
is

not complete in this
life,
[V.
:
88
yet Bengel correctly says
"id
valet suo
modo jam de hac
vita."
L, Vulg. Syr-HarcL etc. The Rec. afoot is the reading of K A B D* has adrtfr, with D most mss., Syr-Pesh., Chrys. The latter is the reading which would most readily occur to the copyist ; no copyist would be likely to depart from it if he had it before him, but a&r&s has a peculiar emphasis*
The tertiary predicate &6oov is placed 2kSook tV ^ kkXyjow. with emphasis before its substantive. Not "a glorious Church," but M the Church, glorious," " that He might present the Church to Himself, glorious." |a*j ?xou<raK <ririXoK. oirlAo?, which also occurs 2 Pet ii. 13, is a word of later Greek (Plutarch, etc.) for myXfe; &rriAos occurs four times in N.T.
&XV
Iva
tf.
Changed
is
structure, as if ifo
ny tyo had preceded
compare
ver. 33.
.
connected by Estius and Alford with o>9 following This is not forbidden by grammatical considerations ; for in spite of Hermann's rule, that the force of ovrm is " ut eo confirmentur praeccdentia? it is used with reference to what follows, introduced by a* or axnrcp, both in classical writers and in N.T. Compare rovs ovnos brKrrafjxvovs cnrciv ok ovScts &v aAAos Svvolto (Isocr. ap. Rost and Palm, cortv yap ovra* uxrmp ovros Iwttl, Soph. Track. 475, is not a good instance, for ovrw may very well be referred to what precedes). And in N.T. 1 Cor. But in such cases ofru? has cf. iv. 1. iii. 15, ovrct) Sk u>? Sta irvpv: some emphasis on it, and apart from that it yields a better sense here to take ovnas as referring to the preceding statement of "Even so ought husbands . . .* Christ's love for the Church. If teal is read before ol foopes, as Treg. WH. and RV., the latter view is alone possible.
88. otfn*
. .
"So
as."
The position of 6<fx[\ov<rir varies in the MSS. Kb 17 and most have before ol a>3/*t, P after. The latter group add xal before ol &>6pef, and of the former group B 17. As the position of the verb would hardly be a reason for inserting ical, it may be presumed to be genuine.
it
ADG
KL
As t& Jcunw otSpara. The sense just ascertained for ovnus determines this to mean " as being their own bodies " ; and this agrees perfectly with what follows "he that loveth his own wife loveth himself." Moreover, although we speak of a man's love for himself, we do not speak of him as loving his body or having an " affection " for it (Alford) ; and to compare a man's love for his wife to his love (?) for his " body," would be to suggest a degrading view of the wife, as, indeed, Grotius does, saying: "sicut corpus instrumentum animi, ita uxor instrumentum viri ad res domesticos, ad quaerendos liberos." Plutarch comes nearer to the apostle's view Kparttv ci rbv dvSpa rrjs ywoucos, (At\ * Sccnron^
:
V. 20, 80]
Kn//iaTOS, AAA*
SPECIAL INJUNCTIONS
w* tyvxqv awfiaTOS, ovpiraffcwTa koX
171
<rv/Airc^vjcora 17J
cwo^p.
uxnnp ovv aaytaroc

#cai
Am mô-fai
ovrco
ft^
SovXevovra rats ijfiwcus

eixfapcuvovra
jcai
aurov
rals
C7rt0v/uai?
ywatxo? ap\iv
XOfM^($/AcvoK (C0/5/. /Vrar. p.
422, quoted by Harless). The meaning is, Even as Christ loved the Church as that which is His body, so also should husbands regard their wives as their own bodies, and love them as Christ did the Church. 6 dyairK t?jk iauTou yupauca laur&v dyair$. This is neither identical with the preceding nor an inference from it, but rather an explanation of <as ra caviw crayusTa. If the latter words meant, "as they do their own bodies," they would fall immeasurably short of this. It is, however, going beyond the bounds of psychological truth to say that a man's love for his wife is but " complying with the universal law of nature by which we all love ourselves," or that it "is in fact self-love," whether "a hallowed phasis " of it or not If it were so, there would be no need to enforce it by precept Although the husband's love for his wife may be compared to what is called his love for himself, inasmuch as it leads him to regard her welfare as his own, and to feel all that concerns her as if it concerned himself, the two mental facts are entirely different in their essence. There is no emotion in self-love ; it is the product of reason, not of feeling ; and it is a "law" of man's nature, not in the sense of obligation (although there is a certain obligation belonging to it), but in the sense that it necessarily belongs to a rational nature. The basis of conjugal love is wholly different, and is to be found, not in the rational part of man's nature, but in the affections. The love is reinforced by reflection, and made firm by the sense of duty ; but it can never become a merely rational regard for another's happiness, as "self-love" is for one's own. To refer to the stirring remarks of Chrysostom above cited, when a man gives his life for his wife, is that an exercise of " self-love " ? Surely no more than when a mother gives her life for her child. There is none of this false philosophy in the language of St Paul 29. tV Joutou orrfpKo. The word is, no doubt, chosen with reference to the crapi fita, quoted ver. 31. It is not perhaps correct, however, to say that it is so chosen instead of atiim, for it is hardly probable that the apostle would have used <r&pa in this connexion in any case. Rather, the whole sentence is suggested by the thought of <rap( frfa. 80. 8n pAi) iajiAv tou awfMrros ourou. Rec adds #c rfp vapKOG abrov koX Ik Sartwv avrov. For the insertion are K G L P (K has rod <r<oftaro? for tw (SotcW) nearly all cursive mas., It Vulg. Syr. (both) Arm., Iren.
Jerome, eta
172
[V.
80
For the omission

It will
insert.
K*AB
17 67*, Boh. Eth.,
Method. Euthal.
Ambrst and apparently Origen.

be seen that the MSS. which omit decidedly outweigh those that
Ellicott speaks of the testimony of K as "divided," which seems a singular way of neutralising the evidence of the earlier scribe by that of a seventh-century corrector.
It is an obvious suggestion that the words might have been omitted by homoeoteleuton. Reiche, who accepted the words (writing before the discovery of K), rightly observes that this can hardly be admitted in the case of so many witnesses. He prefers to suppose that they were omitted in consequence of offence being taken at the apparently material conception The presented; and some other critics have adopted the same view. objection must have been very strong which would lead to such a deliberate omission. But there is no reason to suppose that the words would have given offence, especially considering such words as " a spirit hath not flesh and bones as ye see Me have," not to mention " eating My flesh and drinking My blood." Nor do the ancient commentators indicate that any such difficulty was felt. Irenaeus, after quoting the words, adds: "non de spirituali aliquo et invisibili homine dicens haec; spiritus enim neque ossa neque carnes habet," etc. Indeed, an ancient reader would be much more likely to regard the words as a natural expansion of fxfKrj roG ffwftaroi a&rov. On the other hand, nothing was more likely than that the words should be added from recollection of the passage in Genesis, quoted in ver. 31. It is objected to this, that the words are not quoted with exactness, "bone" preceding "flesh" in Gen. This is to assume an exactness of memory which is at least questionable. Once added, the ordinary copyist would, of course, prefer the longer text As to the internal evidence, on careful consideration it will be found strongly in favour of the shorter text When Christ is called the Head or Foundation, and the Church the Body or House, the language is that of analogy, i.e. it suggests, not resemblance of the objects, but of relations Christ in Himself does not resemble a Head or a Foundation-stone, but His relation to the Church resembles the relation of the head to the body and of the foundation-stone to the building. But what relation is suggested by the bones of Christ ? Or if fftiftaros be understood of the figurative or mystical body, what conceivable meaning can be attached to the bones thereof? This fundamental difficulty is not faced by any commentator. While trying to attach some meaning to the clause, they do not attempt to show any appropriateness in the language. The utmost that could be said is that the words express an intimate connexion ; but unless this was a proverbial form of expression, of which there is no evidence, this, beside* losing the force of 4k, would leave the difficulty unsolved. Moreover, the clause is so for from carrying out the /4A17 rod 0-., that it introduces an entirely different figure. This is disguised in the AV. Had the words been "of His flesh and of His blood," we might have understood them as alluding to the Eucharist ; and it is worth noting that several expositors have supposed that there is such an allusion ; but the mention of "flesh and bones" instead of "flesh and blood" is fatal to
this.
desire to know how the omitted clause has Chrysostom, in the first instance, explains it of the incarnation, by which, however, Christ might rather be said to be " from our flesh." It is no answer to this to say, with Estius, "in hac natura ipse caput est," which is to change the figure.
The
reader
may
been
interpreted.
V. 31]
SPECIAL INJUNCTIONS
173
Besides, it is true of all men, not only of Christians, that in this sense they are of the same flesh as Christ ; but this again is not Alford says: "As the woman owed her the meaning of Ik. natural being to the man, her source and head, so we owe our spiritual being to Christ, our Source and Head " ; and similarly Surely a strange way of saying that our Ellicott, Meyer, etc. spiritual being is derived from Christ, to say that we are from His bones Others, as above mentioned, interpret of communion in the Eucharist (so in part Theodoret and Theophylact, also Harless and Olshausen). Not without reason did Riickert come to the conclusion that it was doubtful whether St Paul had any definite meaning in the
!
words at alL
Compare the use of fori in 81. drrl tovtoo = evKv rovrov. uk Then the sense will be because a man is to love his wife as Christ the Church. V. Soden, however, takes tori tovtov
toff
:
to mean "instead of this," viz. instead of hating (ver. 29), observing that the conclusion of this verse returns to the main idea there, & 1} lavrov <rdp(. See on Lk. xii. 3. quotation from Gen. ii. 24, KaTaXetyci ariptnros, k.t.X. which might have been introduced by "as it is written "; but with words so familiar this was needless. Most commentators interpret this verse of Christ, either So Jerome: "primus vates Adam hoc primarily or secondarily. de Christo et ecclesia prophetavit ; quod reliquerit Dominus noster atque Salvator patrem suum Deum et matrem suam coelestem Jerusalem." So many moderns, including Alford, Ellicott, Meyer, the last mentioned, however, referring the words to the Second Coming, the tense being future. Ellicott thinks this is pressing the tense unnecessarily, whereas it may have the ethical force of the future, for which he refers to Winer, 40. 6, whose examples If the passage is interare wholly irrelevant to Ellicott's purpose. preted of Christ it refers to a definite fact, and the future must have Understood of Christ, the expressions avdpunros its future sense. for Christ, and "leave his father and mother," for "leave His seat in heaven," are so strange and so unlike anything else in St Paul, that without an express intimation by the writer it is highly unCan we imagine St Paul writing, reasonable so to interpret them. " Christ will leave His father and His mother and will cleave to His wife, the Church"? We might not be surprised at such an expression in a mystical writer of the Middle Ages, but we should It is, if possible, less likely certainly not recognise it as Pauline. that he should say the same thing, using avOpomos instead of Xpccrro?, and expect his readers to understand him. If the future is given its proper meaning, the expression " leaving His seat at the right hand of God " is inappropriate.
174
[V, 82
On the other hand, the whole passage treats of die duty of husbands, the reference to Christ and the Church being introduced only incidentally for the purpose of enforcing the practical lesson. It was, indeed, almost inevitable that where St Paul was so full on the duty of the husband, he should refer to these words in Genesis in their proper original meaning. This meaning being so exactly adapted to enforce the practical precept, to take them otherwise, and to suppose that they are introduced allegorically, is to break the connexion, not to improve it There are some differences of reading. The articles before iraripa and firjrtpa are absent in B D* G, and are omitted by Lachm. and Treg., and bracketed by WH. Tischendorf omitted them in his 7th ed, but restored them in the 8th in consequence of the added evidence of K. avrov is added after iraripa in f Syr-Pesh. Boh. from LXX; not in K 17, Vulg. Arm. avrov is added after pqripa in P 47, Vss.
ADKLP,
8*BD G
is
L, Orig., ij yvwauel For rpbs rtj/p yvrauca, which is in K* B D* by K* A D* G. The readings in the Sept also vary.
lead
22. to fufor^pior TOUTO |icya corCf, ty&

et t^|k eKicXi|o%aK.
Xty*) els XpurreV ical
The second
fit is
om. by
B K and some
other authorities.
the meaning of fivar^ptw and of fteya. the former word see on L 9. It does not mean "a mysterious thing or saying/' "a saying of which the meaning is hidden or unfathomable. ' As Sanday and Headlam observe (Rom. xL 25), with St Paul it is a mystery revealed. Again, as to fuya, the English versions not only the incorrect AV., "this is a great mystery," but the grammatically correct RV., "this mystery is great " convey the idea that what is said is, that the mysteriousness This is is great, or, that the mystery is in a high degree a mystery. not only inconsistent with the meaning of nvorrjptov, assuming, as it does, that "hiddenness" is the whole of its meaning (for to speak of a thing as in a high degree a revealed secret would be unintelligible), but it assigns to fiiya a meaning which does not belong to it In English we may speak of great facility, great folly, simplicity, (iroAAi? /uooui, eur^cta); great ignorance (voXXrj ayvoia); great perplexity (iroAX^ awopta): but fuyas is not so These used, for it properly expresses magnitude, not intensity. linguistic facts are sufficient to set aside a large number, perhaps the majority, of interpretations of the clause. The sense must be " This doctrine of revelation is an important or of this kind profound one," What, then, is the /iwmjpiov of which St Paul thus speaks ? Some suppose it to be this statement about marriage, which to the heathen would be new. But this requires us to tale Acy* in the
We must first determine

1
On
V.33]
SPECIAL INJUNCTIONS
75
sense " I interpret," or the like, which it does not admit It is better to understand it as referring to the comparison of marriage with union of Christ with the Church. The latter clause, then, expressly points out that the former does not refer to marriage in itself, and Aiyw has the same which it frequently has in St Paul,
"I mean."
V. Soden takes rouro to refer to what follows : "this secret, i>. am about to say as the secret sense of this sentence, is great, but I say it in reference to Christ and the Church," comparing 1 Cor. xv. 51, fivoryptsov v/uyAcyu. This would be very elliptical Hatch translates : " this symbol (sc. of the joining of husband
that which I
and wife
to Christ
into
one
and
flesh) is a great one. I interpret to the Church'' {Essays, p. 61).

:
it
as referring
rendering of the Vulgate is " Sacramentum hoc magnum ego autem dico in Christo et in ecdesia.* There are several other places in which /uxm/piov is rendered " sacramentum," viz. Eph. L 9, iil 3, 9 ; CoL L 27 ; 1 Tim. iii. 16 ; Rev. L 20. It was, however, no doubt, the rendering in this passage which In an encyclical led to marriage being entitled a sacrament. of 1832 (quoted by Eadie) occurs the statement, "Marriage is, according to St Paul's expression, a great sacrament in Christ and in the Church." But the greatest scholars of the Church of Rome have rejected this view of the present passage. Cardinal Caietan says " Non habes ex hoc loco, prudens lector, a Paulo conjugium Non enim dixit esse sacramentum, sed mysesse sacramentum.
The
est
terium."
And
to the
same
effect
"Neque nego matrimonium

loco
doceri
possit
Estius. Erasmus also says: esse sacramentum, sed an ex hoc
proprie
did
sacramentum
quemadmodum
baptismus dicitur, excuti volo." As to the question whether marriage is properly to be reckoned a sacrament or not, this is If sacrament is defined as in very much a matter of definition. the Catechism of the Churches of England and Ireland and by other Reformed Churches, it is not, for it was not instituted by Christ Even if we take Augustine's definition, " a visible sign of an invisible grace," there would be a difficulty. But if every rite or ceremony which either is, or includes in it, a sign of something spiritual, is to be called a sacrament, then marriage is well entitled to the name, especially in view of the apostle's exposition here. But to draw any inference of this kind from the present passage is doubly fallacious, for this is not the meaning of /uwrnfrxov; and, secondly, St Paul expressly states that it is not to marriage that he applies the term, but to his teaching about Christ and the Church ; or, according to the interpretation first mentioned, to the meaning of the verse from Genesis.
83. vXi)?
ical
dpcif ot ko6* Ira Ikcutto$ t9|k {cmjtou yumtito
ofa*
AycnrrfTw 6s Iout6k.
176
[VI. 1,
" Howbeit not to dwell on this matter of Christ and the irkr/v ." Church, but to return to what I am treating of #ccu vfLcfc, ye also, viz. after the pattern of Christ AV. drops the teat, which is important The precept is individualised by the Ikootos, so as to bring more home its force for each man. fa lavrov, as being himself, ver. 28. rj ywrj is best taken as a yuri), Iva ôPtJtcu t6v &v%pa. ^ nom. abs. and " the wife let her see," etc. On ô^rat, Oecum. rightly remarks d>s irporci ywcuKa ô/Seio-tfat, fiy 8ouXoirpciru>9.
"Nunquam enim
entia," Calvin.
erit voluntaria
subjectio nisi praecedat rever-
VI. 1-9. Special injunctions to children and fathers, slaves and Slaves are called on to regard their service as a service done to Christ ; masters are reminded that they, too, are subject to the same Master, who has no respect ofpersons. iv Kv/x'a> is 1. t& t4kvcl, diraicoiScTf tois yopcuoif dj&uy iv Kupiu. Vulg. Syr. etc. omitted by BD*G, but added in Origen expressly, who mentions the ambiguity of the construction, i.e. that it may be either tow iv Kvpup yovtwriv or waxoverc iv K. If the words had been added from Col iii. 20 they would probably have come after &W01/. Assuming that the words are genuine, as seems probable, the latter is the right construction. "In the Lord," not as defining the limits of the obedience, iv oh av firj irpoo-Kpownp (rj> Kvpup), Chrys., but rather showing the spirit in which the obedience is to be yielded. It is assumed that the
masters.
kAD^KLP,
parents exercise their authority as Christian parents should, and we cannot suppose that the apostle meant to suggest to the children the possibility of the contrary. TOUTO y<tp COTIK SlKCUOK, i.e. KOi <f>VCTl StKCUOV KOI WTO TOV VOflOV wpoorao-owu, Theoph. Compare Col. iii. 20. From the children being addressed as members of the Church, Hofmann infers that they must have been baptized, since without baptism no one could be a member of the Church (Schrifien, ii. 2, p. 192). Meyer's reply, that the children of Christian parents were ayioi by virtue of their fellowship with their parents (1 Cor. vii. 14), loses much of its point in the case of children who were past infancy when their But no conclusion as to infant parents became Christians.
baptism can be deduced.

2. 17ns i<rnv IrroXf)
Alf.
irptfri)
it
iv cirayyeXi?.
To
translate "seeing
is"
i/to, " for such is," would be to throw the motive to
obedience too
The second commandment has something which resembles a promise attached. Origen, who mentions this difficulty, replies, first, that all the commandments of the Decalogue were irpwral, being given first after the coming out of Egypt; or, if this be not admitted, that the promise
much on the fact of the promise. wpwrrj iv hr. has caused difficulty to expositors.
TL 3]
SPECIAL INJUNCTIONS
Iff
in the second commandment was a general one, not specially attached to the observance of that precept The latter reply has
Others have been adopted by most modern commentators. supposed "first" to mean "first in the second table"; but the Jews assigned five commandments to each table, as we learn from Philo and Josephus. See also Lev. arix. 3 and Rom. xiiL 9. The position of the precept in the former passage and its omission In either case this in the latter agree with this arrangement
Meyer and would be the only commandment with promise. EUicott suppose, therefore, that it is not the Decalogue alone that Brauneand Stier understand irpum? as first in point is referred to. of time, namely, the first which has to be learned. Compare Bengel (not adopting this view): "honor parentibus per obedientiam
omnium praeceptorum obedientiam contmet" Ellicott, Meyer, and others take this to mean ir JmyycXia. "in regard of, or, in point of, promise." "The first command we meet with which involves a promise" (11.). Meyer compares Diod. Sic xiii. 37, tv ft cvycfc^ *ol irAotfry rrp&ro?. But to make this parallel we should understand the words here: "foremost in promise," i.e. having the greatest promise attached, or, at least, "having the advantage in point of promise," which is not their Chrysostom says ov tq rd( cfjrcv avrrjv irpwnpr, interpretation. dAAa. rj) bmyytXu^ But it is precisely rg to^ci that E1L and Mey. make it first, only not of all the commandments. It is better, then, to take h (with Alford) as = characterised by, accompanied with, But to what 80 that we might translate "with a promise." purpose is it to state that this is the first command in order accompanied with a promise, especially when it would be equally
praesertim praestitus initio aetatis
:
true, and much to the purpose, to say that it is the only command with a promise? On the whole, therefore, remembering that it is children who are addressed, the interpretation of Stier and Braune seems preferable. Westcott and Hort give a place in their margin to a different punctuation, viz. placing die comma after vpvmj, and connecting brayycXta with Zva. 8. Ira eff oot y^tcu, k.t.X. The text in the Sept proceeds jral Zva iMKpoxp&vws yivy iwl r^s yfjs ifc Kvpios 6 @co$ crov h&wrtow. The latter words are probably omitted purposely as unsuitable to those addressed. The future lay is to be regarded as dependent on Ira, a construction which is found elsewhere in St Paul, as I Cor. IX. 18, Zva aBdiravov Orpin ro cvayy. : GaL U. 4, Zva ijputt KaraiovXwrcwnv. In Rev. xxii. 14 we have future and conjunctive, just as in classical writers future and conjunctive are used after farm. It is possible that lay is used here because there was no aor. conj. of the verb. In the passage referred to in Rev. the future is Imrac
13
178
4.
ital ot

wripes.
side of the children.
[VL 4-6
koI marks that the obligation was not aD
on the
BengeL
So
"patres potissimum alloquitur,
nam
iiL
*ol 61 Kvptot, ver. 9. mrepes, hos faalius aufert iracundja," 21,
f^ *vpopytm, CoL
IpcOCten,
"Do
not
irritate."
iv wcutcia ital POvOcaCa Kuptou. iratScfo occurs only in one other place in St Paul, viz. 2 Tim. iii. 16, wcura ypufaj . . . The verb muScifo uxfrtktfjLO? . . . irpo trtuSctav r^v fr Siicauxrvvy. also, although used of chastening in 1 Cor. xL 32 ; 2 Cor. vL 9, is employed in a wider sense in 2 Tim. iL 25 ; Tit ii. 12. There is no sufficient reason, then, for supposing that the two substantives here are distinguished, as Grotius thinks: "muSc/a hie significare videtur instdtutionem per poenas : vov$<rla autem est ea institutio quae fit verbis," followed by Ellicott and Alford. Rather, mu&cta is, as in classical writers, the more general, vovOta-Ca. more specific, vovQwta is a later form for of instruction and admonition. vwOenjcris. Kvptov is not " concerning the Lord," as Theodoret, etc., a meaning which the genitive after such a word as vovO. can hardly have, but the subjective genitive ; the Lord is regarded as the guiding principle of the education. 5. ol S00X04, diraicoucTc tois kot& arfpita itupiots. This is the B P, eta Rec. has row tcvpiois Kara a-dpKo. order in 8 Bengel thinks that *. o-afuca is added, because after the mention of the true jcupcoc it was not fitting to use Kvpun without qualification. In CoL iii. 22 a sentence intervenes, but still the reason holds good, for 6 Kvpios was their *vpio? also Kara wedfuu Sccnronp is the word used for the master of slaves in the Pastorals
and
Peter.
|mt& +60ou ital Tplpou. These words are similarly associated in 1 Cor. ii. 3 ; 2 Cor. viL 15 ; Phil ii. 12, expressing only anxious solicitude about the performance of duty, so that theje is no In CoL iiL 22 it is ô/fotfallusion to the hardness of the service. /UFCM TO? KVpiOV. The word &w\6rrp is used several ck dir\4ri)Tt 1% KopSios. times by St Pad (by him only in the N.T.), and always indicates "singleness and honesty of purpose, sometimes showing itself in liberality. (See Fritzsche's note on Rom. xn. 8, voL iiL p. 62.) Here the meaning is the obvious one, there was to be no doubleheartedness in their obedience, no feeling of reluctance, but genuine heartiness and goodwill hn yap ko! furh ô/fou teal rp6pjon
oovXcvciv, AAA* owe i( cwotas,
aWa KOKOvpyws,
Oecum.
69 t$ Xpt<rnJ, asusTu Kvpt'a>, v. 22, "so that your service to your master is regarded as a service to Christ" "Not in the way of &f>0. n The 6. pi) KaT o+OcAjiooouXm&k. word is not found elsewhere except in CoL iiL 22, and may have been coined by St PauL The adjective tyfaA/io&wXo* is found
VX
7, 8]
SPECIAL INJUNCTIONS
179
in the
Apost Constit., but with reference to this passage (L p. 299 A, ed. CoteL). The meaning is obvious. 69 dr6pnrtfpc<ritoi. This word is not found in classical writers it occurs in the Sept, Ps. Hi. (liii.) 6 ; not as a rendering of our Hebrew text It is also found in Psalt. Sol. iv. 8, 10. This is the opposite of <fc r$ X/x<mji as well as of the following words. rod before dXX* to 80CA01 Xpumu muouKTCs to OAtjpa rou 6cou.
L, eta, against 8 D* Xpurrov rests on insufficient authority, D GLP, etc. Not subordinate to the following clause, as if it were "as servants who are doing," etc., for the words are clearly in contrast to the preceding, and iroioiWcs rd $&. has much more force if taken as a separate character. Ik i/o;;^ 6, 7. ck +xt)s prr euWas SouXcuoktcs to t Kupiw. may be connected either with what precedes or with what follows. The latter connexion (adopted by Syr, Chrys. Jerome, Lachm. Alf. WH.) seems preferable, for xoiovrw to O&tjijul tov cou does not require such a qualification, nor is there any tautology in taking i* \fr. with the following, for these words express the source in the feeling of the servant towards his work ; per cwouk his feeling towards his master (Harless). Compare Raphel's apt quotation from Xen. : oukow cwocov irparrov, lifav iyv, Sojo-ci avrov \rbv hrtrpoirov] (xtv <roi *a * TO's r*5 c^ f^-^ ' o/>kco cik Svrl trov irapwv. (Occon. Treg. puts a comma after cwotas, WH. after oovAcvovrc*. xiL 5). B D* to before t<j Kv/xw rests on preponderant evidence, K L. Internal evidence is It is omitted by D c P, Vulg. Syr. in its favour, since SovX. t$ k. would be tautologous with oovXot
,
X/KOTOV.
8L el&orts OTi Ikootos & &r vovfyry dyaOoV, tooto KOfiiacTcu
vapd
Kuptou,
There is great uncertainty as to the reading, ay (or ibv) Totifa/* A D G P 17 37, Vulg. Arm. 8rt Uaarot
&n
fjccwrrot ld> ri, B, Petr. Alex. irtidwrt Araffrot, L* 46 1 1 5. fjceurrw Toi-fyrQ* L** and most cursives. This is the Rec. Text 6 4a> 5n (probably to be read 6 rt) &r rodpy, K*, corrected by K by the
insertion of 6 before
tfdr.
There are minor
variations.
The best supported reading is that first mentioned, which is adopted by Treg. and Tisch. 8 ; but Meyer and EUicott think the Rec better explains WH. adopt the reading of B. the others. In the reading of Rec the relative is to be understood as separated from &> rtra cara/9\4^g. 71 by tmesis. C Plato, Legg. ix. 864 E, B D* G, is better attested than the Rec KOfuerraL roO KOfifoerai, K also of Rec before Kvplov is rejected on the authority of all the chief
KOfA%<r0ai is to receive back, as, for
example, a deposit, hence

Ivo,
Compare 2 Cor. v. 10, implies an adequate return. aopbyrai {mootos to, &a rov a-iafW.T099 and. CoL UL 25.
here
it
180

all
[VI. 0, 10
This lesson to slaves b equally a lesson for as the following for all masters.
9. icai ol itupioc
kinds of service,
See on
*/, ver. 4.
tA afr&
spirit
to.
De
Le. act in a similar manner, in the same Wette refers it to &ya$6v. The Greek comm. pressed
iroUlrt.
if it meant SouAcvcrc avrois. dKi^KTfST^KdireiX^. " Giving up your threatening." The article indicates the well known and familiar threatening, " quemadmodum vulgus dominorum solet," Erasmus. Wetstein cites a remarkable parallel from Seneca, cIootcs, ht.X. Thyest 607, "Vos, quibus rector maris atque terrae Jus dedit magnum necis atque vitae, Ponite inflatos tumidosque vultus. Quicquid a vobis minor extimescit, Major hoc vobis dominus minatur I Omne sub regno graviore regnum est"
aura as
A B D\ Vulg.
koX afrrdv sal tywv is supported by preponderant authority, K # (iavrCb) c Boh. Arm., Petr. Alex, eta G have koX airrfo tfuaw : and most cursives, koX ty*r afrOr. Meyer thinks the mention of slaves appeared unsuitable, partly in itself and partly in comparison (adrflr) here with CoL iv. 1. Whether this be a correct account of the causes of the variation, it cannot be doubted that the reading attested by the best MSS. here is the more forcible, expressing, not merely the fact that "ye also have a Master," but that both you and they are subjects of the same Master.
iroAi7fwrWci>, is
vpO0 wiro\t)fu|'ia, like x/xwawnA^fwrTTys, and the verb uyxxrc*found only in N.T. and ecclesiastical writers. The expression wpdoww Xapfiaviv has a different meaning in the N.T. from that which it had in the O.T. In the latter it only meant to show favour, in the former it is to show partiality, especially on account of external advantages. 10-19. Exhortation to prepare for the spiritual combat by arming themselves with the panoply of God% remembering that they have to do with no mere mortal foest but with spiritual powers*
>
10. tou Xourou. to XouroV. K*
So H* A B 17. D G K L P, Chrys.
eta
Meyer points out that B 17 have ffvrapo&rfr instead of M., a variation which Meyer thinks may have arisen from a confusion of the of Xmt6t of Mvw.> thus pointing to the reading \0nr6w. Properly, roO with the XotroO means "henceforth, for the future," Gal. vi. 17, in which sense rb XocrAr may also be used ; but the latter alone is used in the sense " for the As the latter is the meaning here, rest," Phif. iii. 1, iv. 8 ; 2 Thess. iii. I. we should expect rd XocrAr.
added in Rec. before &8w., with KKLP, most but om. by K* 17, Arm. Aetk A G, Vulg. Theodoret have docAôi without fwv. It has probably come in by assimilation to other passages in which to AxkitoV
dSeX+of pou
is
cursives, Syr. (both) Boh.,
BD
occurs (see above).

this Epistle.
cVBurajftouofc.
St Paul does not

strengthened"
address his readers thus in
"Be
C Rom.
iv.
2a
Not
VI. 11, 12]
THE PANOPLY OF GOD
l8l
middle but passive, as elsewhere in N.T. (Acts ix. 22 ; Rom. iv. 20 2 Tim. ii. 1 ; Heb. xl 34). The active occurs PhiL iv. 23 ; 1 Tim. i. 12 ; 2 Tim. iv. 17. The simple verb Swa^tow, which B 17 have here, is used in Col. L 1 1 ,and according to K* A D* in Heb. xi. 34. tv&vvafxowrOai occurs once in the Sept Ps. Ii. (liL) 7 rather in a bad sense. There is no reason why a verb which occurs once in the Sept and several times in the N.T. should be said to be "peculiar to the Alexandrian Greek." K<xi eV xy Kfxfrci rqs urxtfos afoou. Not a hendiadys. Compare
19.
11.
" Put on the panoply of -mivonrkiav too 6cou. iravowXia occurs also in Luke xi. 22. The emphasis is clearly on irav. not on rov cov. Observe the repetition in ver. 13,
M&rootic ity
God."
" of God,"
rtvxtav,
is
i.e.
provided by God, amuriv
Theodoret
There
is
no
Siayc/tci rrjv ffaa-iXucrjv tokcontrast with other armour, nor
iravwrXia to be taken as merely *= " armatura." The completeness of the armament is the point insisted on. St Paul was, no doubt, thinking of the Roman soldiery, as his readers also would, although the Jewish armour was essentially the same. Polybius enumerates as belonging to the Roman iravowXta, shield, sword, greaves, spear, breastplate, helmet St Paul omits the spears, and adds girdle and shoes, which, though not armour, were an essential part of the soldier's dress. " To the end that ye may be able." oTiJvai vpos to ou*Kaor6au />&, "to hold your ground against," an expression suited to the
military figure.
t&s pcfoScios.
Cf. iv. 14.
The
plural expresses the concrete
workings of the j*c0ooaa.
can hardly press it as specially appropriate to the military metaphor and = " stratagems." 12. oVi o6k ianv ijfUK 4 tf\i| irpos alpa ical arfpica. 4/fr, with M A D K L P and most mss. and Vss.
6/i&, BD*G, Goth. Aeth., adopted by Lach., and admitted to the margin by Treg. and WH. The second person would very readily occur to a scribe, the whole context being in the second person.
We
^ miXy. " Our wrestling." The word is suitable to mi o\, but not to the struggle in which the iravoirXia is The word is indeed found in a more general sense (see
^
vpbe al/ia required

Ellicott),
but only in poetry, as " wrestling " also might be used in our own tongue. But as the word is here used to describe what the struggle is not, it is most natural to supply a more general word, such as rj fmxn or fuxxercov, in the following clause, according to an idiom frequent in Greek writers. alfux nai arfpica, in this order here only. Jerome understands this of our own passions ; but that would be po? ttjv o-apica without aT/io. Moreover, the contrast is clearly not between foes within and foes without, but between human and superhuman powers.
82
irpds
[Vllfl
T&t Apxtaf irp^s T&t cfouata?. See on L 21. " World-rulers." The word KocrpuoKpanap occurs in the Orphica (viiL n, xi ti), and is used by the AiyinrrW SchoL on Aristoph. Nub, 397, Sco-ayxctKris 6 y&uriAcvs It frequently occurs in Rabbinical writers Koa-fWKpirmp ycyoytfc. (transliterated), sometimes of kings whose rule was world-wide, as "tres reges Kcxr/ioicparopc?, dominatores ab extremitate mundi ad extremitatem ejus, Nebucadnesar, Evilmerodach, Belsazar" (Shir Rab. iii. 4, ap. Wetst); also of the four kings whom Abraham pursued (Bereshith Rabba, fol 57. 1). These are so called to add Also the angel of death is so called, glory to Abraham's victory. and by the Gnostics the Devil (Iren. i. 1). In the Test XII Pair., Test. SoL the demons say: rjpj&s IvpAV ra \ty6pucva croixcta, ol It appears, therefore, that it Koa-fjuoKparopes rov Kocpuov rovrov. differs from "rulers" in implying that their rule extends over the Schoettgen supposes that St Paul means the Rabbis and icoor/Aos. Doctors of the Jews, and he cites a passage from the Talmud where it is argued that the Rabbis are to be called kings ; he also compares Acts iv. 26. But the context appears to be decisive The contest is clearly a spiritual one. Comagainst such a view. pare the designation of Satan as 6 dcos rov alwvos rovrov, 2 Cor. iv. 4 ; o o^>xo>v T0^ *oV/iov rovrov, John xiv. 30. TOU aKOTOUS TOOTOU, So, without Tov oftm, K* A B D* 17 67*, Vulg. Boh. SyrPesh. and Hard (text), etc
irpo* Tods Koafumpdropas.
tw
After r*6rovf, roO a/wrot is added by fet* most mas. The likely to be omitted because they seemed superfluous or diffiexplain ; and an omission from homoeoteleuton is not to be supposed cult to They might, on the contrary, have been in the face of so many documents. added as a gloss, the phrase 0*67-01* toOtov being rare.
DKLP
words were not
" Against the spirit forces of irp&s T& wvcupariKa ttjs ironfjpuxs. wickedness," which belong to or are characterised by trovtfpCa. RV. has "hosts of wickedness." So Alford, Ellicott, Meyer, comparing ro MnrucoV, "the cavalry," Rev. ix. 16 ; to itoXitmcov, Herod, But these are not vii. 103; to AgoT/Kxa, Polyaen. v. 14. 141. really parallel ; wnrucoV, primarily meaning " appertaining to tmroi," hence " equestrian," was naturally used for brevity to designate the cavalry of an army, as ircuca the infantry, just like our " horse and foot" Thus Polyb. xv. 3. 5, 'Awifias iAAcwiw rots Mnrucofe, " in the matter of cavalry " ; ib. xviii. 5. 5, AtnuXoi . . . Kaff oaov Kara toctovtov tois tinrucots &iatf>4tols ircfucois iXXviri9 cto-t . . . pawn irpos ro fitXrtov rwv aXXo>v 'EXX^vojv: ib, iii. 114. 5, to rwv imrucwv wkrjOos to <rvp.nav tois KapxqoWbts efc /xvptovs. ... In Rev ix. 16 we have 6 apiOfibs rwv arparvpjdr<av rov Imrucov, But irvcv/iaTifcoV never had such a signification, nor would its etymology lead us to expect that it could be so used ; for it does not mean
VX.
lfl]
THE PANOPLY OF GOD
1 83
what relates to irvcifiara, but to to irvctym. It would be almost as reasonable to conclude from the use of the English "horse" and " foot," that " spirit " could be used for a host of spirits, as to draw a like conclusion about nrcv/iariKa from the use of linroca, etc. Moreover, ra hnrucd does not mean " hosts or armies " of horses or of horsemen ; and, if we were to follow the analogy of its meaning, we should interpret ra nv. rs irov. as = the irvcv/tarucoV constituent of vwrfpCa. ra \rj<rrptKdf too, does not mean "bands of robbers," but of "pirate ships," which are themselves called AprrptKa^ Polyaenus, v. 14. 141 ; and to iroAtriirbV, in Herod viL 103, means This word, that part of the population which consists of voXxtoh. like mrucov, used in such a connexion as it has there, at once conveys this meaning. But to give wcKfuxruca here the meaning "spiritual armies, or hosts," is to depart wholly from the ordinary use of the word. Giving up, therefore, this rendering as untenable, we may translate "the spiritual forces, or elements of wickedness." if tois faoupaioois is connected by Chrysostom with y waXrf IotCv. Thus: iv rots hr. r} fux^yi jrclrat , , , x &y (I IXcycv, ij Tivi #ciraA : o-w&rJKTj xpwrfa i.e. our contest is for the heavenly blessings, and so Theodoret, Oecum. aL But in the illustration cited it is the connexion with kcZtcu that makes this sense possible the idea is "rests in, or depends on," which does not suit v\ vaXrf
ioriy.
The view generally adopted by modern

means the
expositors
is
that ra hr.
seat of the evil spirits or spiritual hosts referred to, corresponding to the tov dipos of ii. 2. As Alford expresses it,
fact,
that habitation which in ii. 2, when speaking of mere matters of was said to be in the dw>, is, now that the difficulty and importance of the Christian conflict is being set forth, represented as
iv rots &r.
for us without the panoply of compares t^l ito-ufo, tov ovpavov, Matt vi 26. This comment seems to amount to this, that these spiritual hosts dwell
over us and too strong
God.
He
; but to impress us the more with the difficulty of the combat, the air is called "heaven." There is, however, no proof that tcl hrovpdvta meant the atmosphere, and this is not the meaning of the word elsewhere, e.g. L 3, 20, ii. 6. The view of Eadie, a/., is that ra &r. means the celestial spots occupied by the Church, and in them this combat is to be maintained, "These evil spirits have invaded the Church, are attempting to pollute, divide, and overthrow it" Barry, while adopting the former view of ra &r., yet adds that the meaning points to the power of evil as directly spiritual, not acting through physical and human agency, but attacking the spirit in that higher aspect in which it contemplates heavenly things and ascends to the communion with God.
in the air
184
[VI. 18,
14
In the Book of the Secrets of Enoch% which is pre-Christian, and perhaps as early as b.c 30, we have "a scheme of the seven heavens which, in some of its prominent features, agrees with that conceived by St. Paul. Paradise is situated in the third heaven as in 2 Cor. xii. 2, 3, whereas, according to later Judaism, it belonged to the fourth heaven. In the next place the presence of evil in some part of the heavens is recognised. Thus, in Eph. vL 12, we meet with the peculiar statement, Against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavens " (Morfill and Charles, p. xl). Charles points out other parallels between the Epistle and the Book of the Secrets of Enoch; e^. Eph. iii. 10, iv. 10, 25 (pp. xxii, xli); and the possibility that the present passage has been influenced by these speculations must be admitted 18-18. Detailed description of the spiritual armour. 13. iv rjj ^filpf tjj voKijpa. "The evil day," the day of the power of evil, when the conflict is most severe, " any day of which 9 it may be said, 'this is your hour, and the power of darkness/' Barry. Meyer understands it as referring to the great outbreak of Satanic power expected to occur before the second coming.
jhravra jcaTcpyaorcfpcvoi
;
Oecum. and Theoph. take
this to
mean
but although the verb has this sense occasionally in classical writers, or rather " to despatch, to finish," "conficere," it never has it in St Paul, who uses it twenty times. This would not be decisive if this meaning were more
all,"
;
"having overcome
AV. marg.
suitable here.
But the conflict is perpetual in this world, it is ever being renewed On the other hand, we cannot without tautology understand this clause as merely expressing preparation KaTpy<*co-0a*, too, means to accomplish a for the combat difficult work : "no tat rem arduam," Fritzsche, and could hardly be used of mere arming for the fight It appears, then, to mean having done all that duty requires, viz. from time to time. The Vulgate (not Jerome) has " omnibus perfecti," or, in some MSS., "in omnibus perfecti," following, as some think, the reading KOLTtipyaxrfUyou has icarcpycurficFOf, doubtless a mistake for
not meant for KarcipyaoT&cVot. arrjvai, opposed to ^cuyay, "hold your ground." 14. <rriJT ook. This ot^tc cannot be taken in the same sense as the preceding, otherwise we should have the end there aimed at, here assumed as already attained when the arming begins. In the following details of the figure, each part of the equipment has its appropriate interpretation, which, however, must not be pressed too minutely. In the case of the breastplate and the helmet, St Paul follows Isa. lix 17, vcv<raTo oucaioovvrp d>s dwpatca, koI irtpUBero irc/XKC^dXacor cvrnqpiov hrl rrjs K<fxx\fjs9 but the remainder of Isaiah's description was unsuitable, viz. koX WtpupdktTQ IfuLrtov lieSiKiprcaK kcu to vptfio\aiov ftJAou. The
tcartpyaa-dfi^voLy
VI. 16]
THE PANOPLY OF GOD
85
figure of Isaiah is more fully carried out in Wisd v. 18, so, Ai^rcnu vavov\av rhw tfjkov avrou . . b&vcrmu Owpana 8uc<uo-
ovrqv,
tcaX
wtpdHpcrajL icSpvOa tcpCaw dyvjr&cpcrov.
Aa^rcrat &<nri8a
bcaTafuLxW " io-^jra^ Awci 8k dar&rofw^ 6pyifv elf /So/uâW. In Isa. xL 5, Bucatoawrf and AX^cta are both girdles, The aorists are irepilwdpcKH i4|r to+dr ApAr ir AXi)6ctf. properly used, since the arming was complete before the <rn}rc The present would mean that they were to be arming themselves when they took up their position, which would be rather a mark of
unpreparedness.
The
girdle
was a necessary part of the equipment
of a soldier to make rapid movement possible ; and, indeed, was commonly used to support the sword, though not in Homeric times. But there is no reference to that use here, the sword being not referred to until ver. 17. AA^tfcjp, b>, instrumental, "with"; "truth," not the objective truth of the gospel, which is die sword, ver. 17, but truth in its widest sense as an element of character.
ch. v. 9. it? (ttfxuca rijs Sutaiofffriis, genitive of apposition. 80c., as in ch. v. 9, Christian uprightness of character, which like a breastplate defends the heart from the assaults of evil Eadie (with Harless, al.) understands it of die righteousness of faith, />. Christ's justifying righteousness, remarking that the article has a special prominence. But the article is used in accordance with the ordinary rule, 0<opa*a having the article. The faith by which
Compare
mentioned in ver. 16. That no Christian possesses entire rectitude is not an objection, the breastplate is not faultlessness, which would, in fact, be inconsistent with the figure, but the actual tightness of character wrought by Christ 16. faro&rjadpcKot rofe vfta*, no doubt referring to die "caligae " of the Roman soldier.
this justification is attained is
lv froifuurif. The more classical form is Jrot/ufri^ but Hippocr. has Jrof/uurta. The word occurs in the Sept in the sense of "preparedness" (Ps. ix. 41, x. 17), but more frequently as representing the Hebrew JtDtp, which they rendered according
to their view of its etymology, not its meaning. It is quite erroneous to interpret it here by this use, or rather misuse, of it, as some expositors have done, taking it, for example, to mean "vel constantiam in tuenda religione Christi, vel religionem adeo ipsam certain illam quidem et fundamento cui insistere possis, similem," Koppe. This is also against the figure. Shoes are not the firm foundation on which one stands, but we may compare with them the readiness of mind with which one advances to die conflict, and which is wrought by the gospel tov cvay. It is not preparation to preach the gospel that is meant, for the apostle is addressing all Christians ; and, moreover, this interpretation does not agree with the figure.
86
rijs

tlp^njs,
[VX
16, 17
peace with
av
God and amongst men,

Cat
an Oxymoron,
Chiys.
16. cV irdW.
Tp Sia/?oAa> iroX.fMafAtv iprjvcvo}MV irpos
see ch. ii. 17 ; rov cdV,
So X B P
17, */.,
text,
Vulg. Boh. Syr-Hard.
Aeth.
lirl iracriv,
A D G K L most cursives,
Syr-Pesh.
Arm. etc
a similar variety in Luke xvi. 26, where 8 B L Boh. read 4v% bat ADXAfl/, iwL This alone is sufficient to set aside Ellicott's suggestion that 4v here was a correction for the ambiguous trl. Meyer thinks it was There
is
substituted as the
more common.
If hri
is
nor "over
all,"
read it is not to be rendered "above all," AV. Beza, but "in addition to all"; cf. Luke iii. 20, irpoorcAprc
iraxri.
Kal rovro hrl
OvfKo? is used in Homer of a great stone placed against a door to keep it shut In later writers, Plutarch, Polybius, etc., it means a large oblong shield, " scutum," according to Polyb. 4 ft by 2 J, differing from the acnrk, which was small and round. But in Wisdom, quoted above, oo-idn^ is the fanrk or " clypeus." St Paul's purpose, however, is different, and he is describing a heavy armed warrior well furnished for defence. Only where faith is weak -rijs moTcus, genitive of apposition. does the enemy gain access. In 1 Thess. v. 8 faith and love are
to? OupcoV.
the breastplate.
lv
Suvfyrarfe.
The
future
is
properly used, not because the
combat does not begin

with
evil,
until the
day of the great future
conflict
but because the whole duration of the fight is contemplated. At all times ye shall be able, etc. tA 0Ai) too itoki)oou t& ircirupufUpa afiiaox. The figure alludes to the darts or arrows tipped with tow dipped in pitch and set on fire, mentioned, for example, in Herod, viii. 52. Some of the older interpreters (Hammond, a/.) understood the word to mean poisoned, the word "fiery" being used with reference to the sensation produced ; but this is contrary to the grammatical meaning of the word. "Fiery darts" is a suitable figure for fierce temptations ; beyond this there is no need to go. o-pto-ai is appropriate, since the shields alluded to were of wood covered with leather, in which when the arrow fixed itself the fire would go out So Thucydides tells us of hides being used for this very purpose (ii. 75).
is omitted by B D* G, and bracketed by Treg. and WH.; omitted by If omitted, the interpretation would be "fire tipped as they are." authority for omission is small ; but the insertion would be more easily accounted for than the accidental omission.
t&
Lachm.
The
This verse is 17. ical tV vcputeâXaiaK too awrr|piou o^curfe. separated from ver. 16 by a full stop in RV. as well as by Lachm. TiscL, not Treg. But though the construction is changed,
WE
VI. 18]
as in L 22, this
THE PANOPLY OF GOD
187
is only a result of the rapidity of thought for which adherence to the participial construction might be a hindrance. The same vividness of conception leads the writer to put rqy ircpuc first Sttmjptov is not used elsewhere by St Paul ; here it is taken with the preceding word from the Sept Theodoret understands
strict
as masculine, referring to Christ ; and so Bengel, " salutaris, i.e. this is refuted by the parallel, 1 Thess. v. 8, where ; but the fl-epur. is the hope of salvation. Soden thinks that in that passage the apostle purposely corrects the o-wrrjpiov of the Sept This cannot well be a genitive Kal tV pixaiPai' to** iryciSfMiTos. of apposition, since the following clause explains the sword as ffifjui @cov. Olshausen, indeed, and Soden, take the relative o as referring to irvcv/iaros. They understand the writer as speaking of the Holy Spirit in relation to man, as finding expression in the word of God But there is no parallel for thus calling the Spirit pij/w, 0cou. It fa much more natural to interpret rov nv. as " which is given by the Spirit"; nor is there any difficulty in taking this genitive differently from the others, since this alone is a genitive of a personal name. Chrysostom suggests the alternative : tjtoi to Hvv/jui <f>7j<Tiv9 tjtoi iv rjj vrevfiaTiKy fiaâlp^ (or Tfroi to \dpicrfjua, tA
it
Christi "
yap wVfiaTUcrjs fia\aipa^ k.t.A,). & ionv rjpa 6cou. Compare Heb. iv. 12, 6 Aoyos rod 0cov ro/twrcpos vwip traxrav paôipaK oYoto/aov. Sc&ur0c " Accipite, oblatum a Domino," Bengel.
wcvfuXTticoV, 81a
AD"KL,
omitted by
etc.,
a/.
read tetaff$ait perhaps only by itacism.
The verb
D* G,
18. Bia wdVtjs irpoacuxT)? Kal Secret*, K.T.X. These words are best taken with the principal imperative crri/rc, not simply with the previous clause, for irdVip and cv travrl KcupQ would not agree with the momentary act Sccur0c, which is itself subordinate to ot^tc "With all prayer, ue. prayer of every form." irpwrtvxn and 00/0-19 differ in this respect, that the former is used only of prayer, whether supplication or not, to God, while Scipris means " request," and may be addressed to either God or man. Here, then, we may say that vp. expresses that the prayer is addressed to God, and &, that it involves a request Compare PhiL iv. 6, iv iravrl tq vpoo'tvxQ koX tq Se^crci, and see on Lk. i. 13. eV irairl itaipy corresponds with the d&aAeiirrus trpoatvâOax of 1 Thess. v. 17. i riwufwiTi. "In the Spirit" (cf. Jude 21) not = fo i/a^fa for which interpretation St. Paul's usage supplies no justification, besides which it was not necessary to say that the prayer was to be from the heart Chrysostom supposes ck ht. to be in contrast to /farroAoy&us, which is also open to the objection that he who has put on the specified armour must be assumed not to pray iv fiarroXoyL^
: :
1 88
icatefe

oW.
The
[VL 19
"Thereunto,"
i.e.
to the irpoacvxoficvot iv v. #c
Ik *k.
Rec. has to^to after
G,
afrr6r).
aflr6, with D J K, etc. ; bat airrb alone, K B (D* frequent occurrence of aflrd rovro in St. Paul accounts for
the insertion.
dypuirrourrcs <y irrfaj) irpoo-KapTcpâeu Compare Col iv. 2, tj} vyxKTcvxp irpoo-KaprtfxZTtf ypi7yopowrcs cv avrj} cv câptarup, " keeping watch," or "being watchful"; cf. Mark xiii. 33, aypwrvciTt kcu wpo<rvx<r0 : 35, yprjyopclrt : Luke xxL 36, dypvarcirc Ik vairl
&
Kat/Xp OCO/UVOt, K.T.X.
Upoo-KapripQa-ts is not found elsewhere, but the verb irpoo-Kaprcplw is frequent both in classical writers and N.T. always with the sense of continued waiting on, attention to, adherence, etc. Cf*
Acts
ii.
42, TJj&t&axjj:
id.
46,
r<p icpu: viii.
13,
t<J
fciAiWy:
Mark
1%
9, fra irXotaptoK vpoo-Kaprtpfi avrQ : Rom. xii. 1 2, irpoo'cyxtf xiii. 6, cis avro rovro. It is clear, then, that Alford is not justiiii,
fied in rendering
it
Practically, there is
" importunity " in order to avoid a hendiadys. a hendiadys.
kcu, introducing a special Harless and Eadie distinguish ircpi here from " They could not know vrcp regarding the latter as more vague. much about all saints, and they were to pray about them." Eadie admits, however, that such a distinction cannot be uniformly Meyer, to prove the prepositions synonymous, quotes carried out Dem. Phil. ii. p. 74, fir) ircpt twk SikcuW /atjS* xnrip rwv fw TrpayfULTwv cZkcu rty fiovXrjv, AAA' wrcp rwv If tq x*>pp but this passage rather indicates the contrary ; " not about a question of justice, but in defence of." So also the similar one, ov ircpl 8oip ov$' vrrkp pipov* X^pas xoXc/iowi, i.e. "not about a matter of glory, but in defence vwlp &6(rj9 might have been used, but the idea would not of," etc be quite the same. Here, too, vvlp expresses with more precision 11 on behalf of" ; but the reason of the difference is probably not to be found in the difference between irdvruv rwv ay&w and c/aov, but in the fact that the special object of the latter prayer is stated "and on behalf of me, that," etc. See Dale, Lect xxiv. p. 437. 19, 20. The apostle's request for their prayers for himself that he may have freedom to proclaim the mystery of the gospel for which he is an ambassador. Aoyos, in the Iko, (tot So&jj \6yof Ik Aroifei too oto^mltos pou. sense of utterance, as 2 Cor. xL 2, i&iwrrp t<5 Aoyw. The words <W rod or. are by some connected with die following. Thus Grotius: "ut ab hac custodia militari liber per omnem urbem perferre possem sermonem," etc., but irapprrjvCa never refers to external freedom, and its meaning here is further determined by To take vapprqoi^ as merely epexegeticai vappipriOTCtyuu, ver. 20. of Ako r. ot. would be very flat
wtpl irdmrwK twk dyi*^, koI 6ircp Ipou.
case, see ch. v. 18.
VI. 90]
REQUEST FOR PRAYER
1 89
the
Taken with the preceding, the words may mean the opening of mouth by God, as in Ps. li. 17. Or they may mean, "when I open my mouth." The latter is the interpretation adopted by But so understood, the words are Alford, Ellicott, Eadie, Meyer.
superfluous, not to say triviaL
On the other hand, with the former interpretation they give a fulness of expression to the idea in SoO$ Aoyo?, which is in harmony with the gravity of the thought ; they complete from the subjective side what is expressed on the objective side in bofrfi Aoyos. This
the article although there it is 2ra "Opening the mouth" is an 6 cdt Amg rjfuv Ovpay rod \6yov. expression used only where some grave utterance is in question. "To make known with openness of iv Trappt]<ri^ ywpfoaw speech " ; c PhiL L 20. The margin of RV. connects iv vapfnyrfy with the preceding words, as the AV. had done; This involves a tautology with rapprjo-uurvpau
is
the view of Harless, Olsh. Soden.

its
The absence of
is
also in
favour.
Compare CoL
iv. 3,
ftofcff
of Rec rests on very slight evidence.
to fUKrrVjpiOK too cfayy. See ch. 80. farp oft vpcaPcuu iv dXdaci. the object of yvvpurai, and yvupunu
irpar/Scva.
9.
ofi
refers to to fivcrr., for this is
substance connected with to /avot. tov Xpurrov oY 8 jcal 8c8c/mu. The simplest view is probably the best : " I am an ambassador in chains"; but Grotius understands the words to
is in
Compare CoL
iv. 3, XaXrjcrat
" nunc quoque non desino legationem " ; but this would some emphasis on dAwrcc, as, for example, k<u Iv dA. irpco-jScvcD : and there is no reference here, as in PhiL L 12 ff., to the good effects of his imprisonment The oxymoron is noted by Bengel and Wetstein: "alias legati, jure gentium sancti et inviolabiles, in vinculis haberi non poterant" So, indeed, dXwru is in Theoph., tovs irp&r/icis v6fios fiyfibr iraxrx^w kojcov.
mean
require
distinct opposition to iv irapfyqa-u^
Paley and others have drawn attention to the use of 2Xvra here as referring to the "custodia militaris" in which St Paul was kept at Rome, Acts xxviiL 16, 20 ; cf. 2 Tim. i. 16. It is true the singular might possibly be used in a general sense, although the instances cited from Polyb. of efc r^v aXvcrty ifiiriirruv (xxL 3. 3, iv. 76. 5) are not parallel, since the article there is generic. Still it can hardly be denied that the term has a special suitability to the circumstances of this imprisonment, or rather custody. Of course, ocoyiot as the general term might also be used, and therefore the fact that it is used, CoL iv. 18, is no objection. Co-ordinate with the preceding Ifo iv afru vappvjaufowpcu. lvn. Soden, however, takes the clause as depending on the p*rj9cvu iv dX., the meaning according to him being that St Paul
I90
[VL 21-24
might have been set at liberty on condition that he did not preach the gospel, but remained in custody in hope that the result of the trial would be that he would be at liberty to preach. This, he adds, Set /ic XoAô-cu, and escapes the tautology involved corresponds to in the other interpretations.
21-04. Personal commendation of Tychicus, who carries the

letter,
andfinal benediction.
koI is probably simply "ye as well i8tjt xal Ape??. as others." Meyer and others suppose a reference to the Epistle to the Colossians, " ye as well as the Colossians"; cf. Col. iv. 7. But this seems forced, for this significance of kwL could hardly occur to But it may mean, "although there are no personal the readers.
21. Iva
M Alford understands: "as /have been relations between us. going at length into the matters concerning you, so if you also, on your part, wish," etc tA kut <|i*= Col. iv. 7. -A vprfcrro, nearer definition of to, kolt Ipt, "how I do,* not "what I am doing," which they knew was the one thing that always engaged his thoughts. Ti$xikos 6 &yain)T&$ d&cXô? ical mcrros SmUopos. Tychicus is mentioned, Acts xx. 4, as accompanying St Paul from Macedonia His services as fodtcovos are alluded to 2 Tim. iv. 12; to Asia. Tit iii. 12. It was only iv Kvpup that he was Paul's ouucovos. In CoL iv. 7 owSouAos is added. 22. tv hrep|ra els touto ( = CoL iv.), *>. for the very purpose now to be mentioned fra ywSrc ra irepi fjfi&v, c.r.X. = CoL iv. 8 (where, however, there is a difference of reading). truly apostolic benediction 28. Eip^nfj T0I5 &Sc\+ois, avr.X. as to substance, but differing in form from St Paul's final benedicFirst, it is in the third person, not the second, rots d&Aôts tions. instead Of v/uk, /icto, irayrw rwv dy. instead of fieff Vfuav. The whole form, too, is markedly general This agrees well with the view that the Epistle was addressed to a circle of Churches. Secondly, the benediction is in two parts, not, as elsewhere, one and, thirdly, x**/"?* which elsewhere comes first, here concludes, and tlprjvr), elsewhere last, is here first These points all speak for the genuineness of the Epistle, and against the hypothesis of
&
aM
imitation.
dydin) |mt& irbrrcuf. ir&rrts is presupposed, therefore Love is the characteristic of a true faith. AydwTj koX ir.
it is
not
For dydrri
2 Tim.
i.
A has IXeot, suggested probably by recollection of 1 Tim. Lit
1.
24. 'H Xtfp'S P*1^ trdyrwv ru dyairwrrvr Tor Kripior ^JAW *li|aour jTOr iv dÔapai^. tyOopo-ta elsewhere means the incorruptibility of future im-
VL 24]
CONCLUDING SALUTATION
191
mortality; see, for example, Rom. ii. 7 ; 2 Tim. i. 10. The adjective a<t>6apros has a corresponding meaning. God is aÔapros, Rom. L 23; 1 Tim. L 1 7 ; the dead are raised <fy0aproc, 1 Cor. xv. 52 ; the Christian's crown is a<{>0afrros. So 1 Pet iii. 4, the ornament of women is to be lv T<j> a<t>8dpr<p rov irpac'os koI rprvxtov
trvVfjuar<K.
The
and
character,
is
word, then, does not point merely to time but to that suits very well here as an attribute of love. It
(<ty0opz,
It
is
more than "sincerity"
Tit
ii.
7);
it is
"imperish-
ableness, incorruptibility."
"spiritual, eternal love,
and
thus only is the word worthy to stand as the crown and climax of this glorious Epistle," Alford. Some connect the word with x'WSoden defends the connexion on the following grounds: first, that if connected with dyainovTWK, iv <ty0. must express a character of the 6ydmff in which case Styairav tv &<f>$. would be an unsuitable form of expression for AyairSv iv dyairp &<f>8dpru>; and, secondly, that AtftOafxrCa almost always contains a point of contrast with the transitory nature which belongs to the creature in this world ; it belongs to the sphere of heavenly existence, serving to designate eternal life as the highest blessing of salvation ; and this is the gift of x*Pl?> which culminates in the remarks, bestowal of it Bengel, who connects a<f>$. with xa however, well: "Congruit cum tota summa epistolae: et inde redundat etiam tyOapvta in amorem fidelium erga Jesum The writer, in fact, returns to the fundamental Christum." thought of L 3-14. There is no analogy for the connexion with tov Kvpicv yp&v,
V^
adopted by some expositors.

a
A|i^v
is
added
17,
in
fefDKLP
most mss., Amiat ## Syr. (both) Boh., not
Id
K* ABG
Ann. Amiat.*
THE
EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIANS.
nPOX KOAOZXAEIX.
uncertain. In the title the spelling KoXo#wa*i (KoXanwti), while have KoXcunroei^ which K also hat twice at the top of the page, and so once (once also KoXoffoaeis). B# C 17 agree in KaXowoaf, while In the subscription K
The spellirig of the
iiame
is
is
given by
BDGL 17
AB*KP
BDGLPhaveKoXo<r<raf.
Inver.
2KBDGL have KoXorauf K P 17,

,
/.
The
Arm.
0.
versions also vary.
Syr. (both) have a, with Boh., but Vulg.
KoXoraut (A non liquet). and
Coins give the spelling with 0, and for the name of the people Kokwnpriaw or Kokoampwr. But the form with a appears in Polyaenus and in some MSS. of Herodotus and Xenophon. The latter may have been a provincial pronunciation and spelling. WH. and Lightfoot adopt a in the title, o in ver. 2 ; Tregelles has a in both places, as well as in the subscription (which WH. omit). Tischendorf preserves the correct spelling with o, remarking, "videtur KoWout scriptura sensim in usum abisse. At inde nonsequitar iam Pautam ita scripsisse." As the heading did not proceed from the pen of St Paid, this conclusion agrees practically with that of WH, and Lightfoot as
to the spelling here.
Salutation. riouXos dvooroXoe, *vr.X. See Eph. L 1. koI Tif&o6co$. Timothy's name is joined with that of Paul In Phil and also in 2 Cor. Phil 1 Thess. 2 Thess. Philemon. Philemon, however, the apostle proceeds in the singular, whereas here the plural is maintained throughout the thanksgiving. 6 AScX+es. This does not imply any official position (owcow koX AvooToAof, Chrys.); it is the simplest title that could be employed to express Christian brotherhood. So it is used of Quartus, Rom. xvL 23 ; of Sosthenes, 1 Cor. L 1 ; and of Apollos, x Cor. xvL 12 ; and of an unnamed brother, 2 Cor. viiL 18, xiL 18. Compare 2 Cor. ix. 3, 5. dytoie, as in all similar fi. rots iv K. dyiois xal moTots dftcX+ots. De Wette, however* salutations, must be taken as a substantive.
X. 1.
13
194

Syr.
is
[L 8
and apparently
dficXôic.
TTurroU
and Vulg., connect it as an adjective with more than "believing," which would add
It is "true, steadfast"
nothing to dytotc and dScAôw.
Cf. Acts
xtL
Closely connected with vurroU 8., but refers Only Cf. xtords Stcucovos iv Kvpup, Eph. vL 21. in Christ were they " faithful brethren " ; the article, therefore, is not v Xp. might, indeed, have been dispensed with ; but it required. suits the formality of the introductory greeting.
chiefly to irioTois.
After frXfijT&'I^roO
is
15. iv Xpurryi
added in
KLP,
Syr-HarcL Ann.
etc.
17, Vulg. Boh., not in (Syr-Pesh. has lyroO before Xpurrf).
AD* G
K BD
It is remarkable that
Tjj itucXTfcru^ reus liucXi^ruus ;
the address is accidental It certainly gives the address a more personal and less official aspect, and may have been adopted because the apostle had no personal relations with the heads of these Churches, It has been objected to to which he was personally unknown. this, that in iv. 16 the Church of the Laodiceans is mentioned; and, again, that the Epistle to the Philippians, to whom St Paul was personally known, is similarly addressed. As to the former objection, it may be fairly replied that to speak of his Epistle being read in the Church is very different from addressing it to the Church ; and as to the second, although the word tKKkrpka is not used in the address to the Phil., we have what may be regarded as an equivalent, <rvv Ano-xoWs *<u 8ta#c6Vois. It is hardly satisfactory to say that the disuse of fcieXiprta in the address is characteristic of the later Epistles; for, first, this is not an explanation; and, secondly, the word is used in Philemon, tq *car oU6v crow ImcAiprla. XdfMS bpiv Kal clp^Kii And 6cou waTpc? 4)rl* > a Eph. L 2, where there follows u Kvplov Iiprov Xpurrcw,
'
Paul's earlier Epistles are addressed whereas here, as in Rom. and Eph., This can hardly be to the saints and brethren.
St
These words are added here also in K and most MSS* Boh* Arm., also P in a different order, liy<roO Xp. roO Kvplov 4pAr. The words are absent from B D K L 17, al. Amiat Fuld. Syr-Pesh. (text). Origen and Chrysostom both expressly attest the absence of the words. The latter, after
quoting the preceding words, observes : top vlhv telyrpcr koX 06 veov4(hiK*r 4* rdViuf rcuf IrtffTokus " cat Kvplov IrpoO XpteraO. The addition has
ACG
plainly
come
in
by assimilation
to
Eph.
8-8. Thanksgiving for their faith and love, passing on into the insurance that the gospel they were taught by Epaphras was the true universal gospel, which proved its genuineness by the fruit itproduced^ both among them and in all the world. 8. cflxopurroojwi'. In all St Paul's Epistles to Churches, with the exception of that to the Galatians, the Salutation is followed by thanksgiving. In Eph. as in 2 Cor. this is in the form ctooyiprdf 6
X.
4, 6]
THANKSGIVING
some form of
v\api(rnk
195
fcco*,
elsewhere in
On
the verb, see

in iiL 15
mrpL have the elsewhere, however, always 6 $cfc
Eph. 115. t$ ecf
We
icat
same form of words mr^p.
and apparently all other Here also raJ is inserted by K mas. except those mentioned below ; Vulg. Arm. Theodoret, al. Chrys. have ry Tarpt). Old It is wanting in B C* D* G, Chrys. (D* Latin, Syr. (both) Boh. Eth. Tisch. 8th ed. (in deference to N), restores *af, which he had omitted in Lachm. also omits, but reads ry with D* 7th ed. (WH. and RV. omit). F G. Meyer thinks Jtoi was omitted in a mechanical way after the preceding
ACD^KLP,
G
OeoO warpit.
agree with B C in omitting coi, while iii. 17, K with L and nearly all others, as well as Syr-Pesh., insert it The evidence for the omission there is decidedly preponderant. It is less so here, yet perhaps decisive enough when we consider how^ certainly the scribes would stumble at the unusual form. The reading ry warpl appears to be another attempt to get rid of it Compare i. 12 below, where K 37, with other authorities, have 6y before warpL
It is observable that in
D F G,
cfaaptoToupcr irdrnm vepl ujiAk irpoircux^rMrot* & questioned whether m&rorc is to be joined with cwxtpurroviw or with irpocrcvx. The latter connexion is adopted by the Greek commentators, also by Bengel, Olshausen, Alford, Ellicott, etc. But Eph. L 16 is almost decisive for the other connexion, ov
iravofiax
ttyapurribv
vrrlp
vputxy
1
pvctav vfuav
1
woiovficvos
2.
hA rw
irpoaxvypiv /aov.
Compare
Cor. L 4;
Thess. L
ir/Mxrcvg. is,
" We give thanks on your in fact, a nearer definition of toktotc. account always in our prayers,* or (as Meyer), "always when we pray for you." "Always praying for you" would require the addition of words specifying the object of the prayer.
reading varies between rtpL and Mp. The latter is read by B D* C D* J K, with most mss., have repL trip would readily be introduced from ver. 9, where there is no variant
The
17, a/., but
4. duofaaircf,
tV
tturnv opA? cV Xpurr^ 'rnaoG.
Assigns the
ground of his thanksgiving.
addition of iv Xp. *lrj<r. itself expresses only a psychological conception, is quite natural here, where St Paul is addressing for the first time those who were unknown to him. So in Eph. Lis. In Rom. L 8 the specification of vfori? had preceded vo. 2, 3. The article is unSee Eph. /.& necessary, as *6m iv Xp. is one notion. kcm tV Ayrfwnr IJr ?x<rt elf irdvrat rods dyfaif.
The
had heard from Epaphras, ver. 8. as a more precise definition of ran?,
He
which of
17 37 47, a/. Old Latin, Vulg. Boh. mss. Chrys. Theod. Syr-Pesh. have rip dydrrp rip df while B has rip dydw^w tit. The reading with fp tyrr* might be a conformation to Philem. 5, while rip dydr^w rip might be a conformation to Eph. L 15.
**# read in But Syr- Hard. Arm.
D* K L and most
KACD*GP
0.
ftiA TJ)r
IXwito.
The Greek comm. and most moderns
196
[L 6
connect this with the words immediately preceding, "the love which ye have to all the saints." dycwrarc, <f>7j<rt, rovs dyiW ov Sia T4 avOpwTnvov dXXa 8ta to cAn-t^cty tcl /acAAovtcl dya0a, Theoph. The reasons alleged are (1) the remoteness of tvxaptoTovfuv (2) the following clause, rjv TrporjKovaaTc, suggests that the words 81a
ttjv IXirtSa
describe the motives of the Colossians for welldoing, rather than the reasons of the apostle for thanksgiving; (3) in other Epistles the ground of thanksgiving is the spiritual state of the persons addressed ; (4) cvxapiorctv is never used with 81a in
the N.T. ; and (5) the connexion with cfy. would break up the triad of graces which St Paul delights in associating together. (So Meyer, Soden, Alford, Ellicott, Lightfoot) (1), (2), (5) are conYet surely there is something sidered by Lightfoot decisive. strange in assigning the future hope as the motive of Christian love. As Eadie observes, if the apostle had said that they loved one another because of the common hope which they had in heaven, or that this prospect of a joint inheritance deepened their attachments, the meaning might have been easily apprehended; but why the hope in itself should be selected as the prop of such love, we know not Of all the graces, love has the least of self in its nature. Such passages as 2 Cor. ix. 6, Gal. vi gi. are not analogous; for what creates a difficulty is not the mention of expected reward as a motive for action, but as a motive for love. As iXirk here is not the grace of hope, but the object (rr)y diroicctnhrqv), reason (5) loses its force ; as ikwis does not mean the same thing as in 1 Thess. L 3, for example, it is quite natural that it should fall into a different connexion. Nor does there seem to be much weight in the second reason. The words rjv irpo^fcovo-arc, k.t.A., involve an appeal to the first teaching they had received, which was sound and full This goes very well with cvxapurrov/Acv but if the hope were described as the motive of their love, what appropriateness would there be in referring to their former instruction in it? As to (3) and (4X the clause AKowram* does imply that the ground of his thanksgiving was their faith and love ; but it is consistent with this that what prompted him to feel thankful for these graces was the thought of the hope laid up for them, and hence with this connexion Sid is not only admissible, but is alone The signification of cvxapurrciK xmip (1 Cor. x. 30 ; Eph. suitable. There is good reason, then, for v. 20) is not that required here. Bengel's interpretation : " ex spe patet, quanta sit causa gratias agendi pro dono fidei et amoris." If rjv ?x*rc be omitted the connexion with aywtrrjv is grammatically harsh. Estius, De Wette, Olshausen, and others connect hik t^v &. with both vtarrw and dyamqv. This connexion is certainly awkward, and the sentiment not Pauline. Theodore Mops, connects the words with vpoo-ôjuvoi.
X.
6]
Airii
is
THANKSGIVING
clearly objective, as in
for,
97
tV
diroitc^nfjK.
Rom. viii. 24 ; Gal. v. 5. The thought of the " hope," i.e. the
bless-
ing hoped
being already prepared is not expressed in this form by St. Paul elsewhere, except perhaps 1 Tim. vi. 19, but is clearly put in x Pet L 4, K\rfpovofiiav . . rmjpTjfianffv $v ovpavoZs. In substance it is involved in Phil. iii. 20, and, indeed, in Matt
.
vL 20.
H* irpoi|KoiiaaTf. The vpo- has reference, according to Meyer, Bengel understands it simply as "anteto the future fulfilment quam scriberem," but the context rather suggests that the reference is to their early teaching in contrast to the later errors. The apostle now is not teaching them anything new, but desires to confirm them in the true doctrine which they had already learned. Compare w. 7, 23 and v. 6. Hence also the mention of the truth of the gospel in the following words : i t$ Aoy^p *"!* dXt]6t(as toG c6ayyc\tou. That cvayycXiov is the
principal notion here is shown by the participle irapoVros, which agrees with it, and not with oA^lcia?. And this is confirmed by the connexion of cAm's and cwryyeAvov in ver. 23. The genitive dAqlccas then qualifies Aoyo*, and this compound notion is explained by cwryy. f) aA. toG cvayv., Gal. ii. 5, 14, is not exactly parallel, because there the formula has a direct polemical purpose. Here the point is that 6 Aoyo? tou cfayy. is a Aoyos ri}s aAq&ta? in opposition to those false teachers who would fain complete it by
their mzoa&xrct?, iL 8,
which were
Kvfi dirdrrj.
6. tou irap6rros ci$ djias.
implying " has

ifitv /cat
come and
heel,
iorw
quite classical use of vaptwai as remains." ov vapcycycro *al dvi<mf9 aAA" Chrys.; cf. Acts xii. 20. It needs, then, no
further addition. koQ&s koA ir warn, tw icoofup itrAv itapiroôpoufUKOK. vavrl r<p Kwrfjup here is not an insignificant hyperbole, but intimates the catholicity of the true gospel in opposition to the merely local
character of false gospels ; compare ver. 23. Tischendorf, ed. 8, places a comma after i<rrtv. This construction escapes the irregularity involved in the doubling back of the c rnparison by the second ca0u?. The comparison then may be either as to the mere fact of the presence of the gospel, so that l<rrtv = " exists," or as to the contents of it, which agrees better with the designation of the gospel as Aoyo? ri}s aAi^cuw. The readers then are assured that the gospel which has come to and remains with them is the same as in the whole world ; they need have no fear that it was imperfect ; it is the false teachers that are not in agreement with the universal gospel. So Soden. But most COmm. connect cori with Kafnroôpovfivov xal av.
koI is prefixed to 4<rrLw in
D te GKL,
etc Old Lat Vulg. Syr. (both)
Chiyt.
19$

It is absent
[L 6
The
evidence
from
MA BCD*
17, al.
Boh. Arm. Eth.
against it, therefore, is quite decisive. It was doubtless added to simplify the construction, and is defended on the ground of this simplicity by Olshausen and Eadie. Ellicott, who had previously hesitated, thinking that it might have been omitted to modify the hyperbole, omitted the word in his 5th ed.
The middle voice is not elsewhere found; probably intensive, denoting the inherent energy, while the active (which is used below, ver. 10) would rather denote
Kapirwfnpovfjwov.
is its
force here
external diffusion (Lightfoot).
Verbs
like o-io^/w^pcurftu, rvfiwavo-
<o0U70<u are not parallel, since in
them
foptlcrOcu
means "to
wear."
Those comm. who connect

2 Cor.
li.
iartv with the participles explain
this periphrastic present as expressing continuity

ix. 12,
ov fiovov iorlv irpoaavaTrXrfpowra, K.T.A.,
of action, as in and PhiL
26, iwuro$iV rjv. xat a&iav6iuvo rests

I,
on preponderant evidence,
KABCD*
eta avav6jxvov doubtless refers to the outward expansion, as xapiro^. "The gospel is not like those to the personal, inner working. plants which exhaust themselves in bearing fruit and wither away. The external growth keeps pace with the reproductive energy," Lightfoot Observe the order ; first the preservation of the gospel
Vss.
Rec. omits, with
D* K,
amongst those who received it, and after that its extension to new circles. Both are to the Colossians a proof of its truth and
sufficiency.
Kates xal iw Apir, so that they did not come behind their brethren in this respect. If we connect the participles with fcrriv, the comparison is very curiously doubled back on itself. Moreover, as Olshausen observes (defending the addition of teat after Koo>up), the words Ko0* icot iv {ffiiv do not fit the beginning of the proposition, KaOvs icaX iv vavrX t<3 Kwr/uaf since the Colossians are, of course, included with the rest in the whole world. Lightfoot explains the irregularity thus : " The clause reciprocating the comparison is an afterthought springing out of the apostle's anxiety not to withhold praise where praise can be given," and he compares 1 Thess. iv. 1 (not Rec.), wapoKaXovfiw tv Kvptw *lrjcrov Zva, koOuk traptXdfiert trap*
rffUtjfy
to
iruts Set
Vftas irtpiiraTUv koX dpc'cr/cciy >c<, ica0u>9 icai mptira-
not really from #ca0a* irapcXa/fcrc, and is a courteous admission that they were actually walking as they had been taught Here there is nothing of the kind, and the difficulty (apart from that mentioned by Olshausen) is that we have the mere repetition, "in you as also in all the
rctrc,
Iva ir(.puTcrtvrjT fiaXXov.

;
But that passage
is
parallel
for tcaOu*
teal
ircpcirarclrc is entirely distinct
world, as also in you."
The
difficulty,
of course, disappears in the
2. 7]
THANKSGIVING
I99
Rec. Text with the insertion of koL ; or, since we are compelled to omit K<u, with the adoption of the construction above referred to, as then the comparison in *a0o>? xai tv vjuy is with fcapvo^.
To be closely joined with *ca0a* ml 4|s 4p4>*t> * the fruitfulness and growth began at once, so that it was independent of these later iropaSoo-cis. t\Kofoa-n koI ivtyvwn tV x^P 1 *There is no occasion to regard tV x<^mf as the object of the latter verb only (as Meyer, Alford, Ellicott, Eadie understanding " it," t\e. the gospel, as the object of ^KovVarc). x*P l* was content of the gospel message, which is called to vayy&iov rip x*PiTO* TS * ^ (Acts xx. 24), and as such may be said to be heard. can hardly, indeed, say, with Light11 foot, that St Paul uses \dpis as a " synonyme for the gospel, of which use he gives as instances 2 Cor. vL 1, viiL 9, yivwo-Ktr* rrpr x&pw rav KvpCov T)fu*>v 'Iiprov Xpcorov, an. Si* vfias lirrwyfvarc vXownos &v. Here the word suggests a contrast with the false gospel, which was one of Soyfwra (u. 14). Compare GaL iL 21, ofe aOerSt rrjv X^P LV Tv v. hriyvw implies not so much developed knowledge as active conscious recognition, or taking knowledge of; c Acts iii 10, iv. 13, xxiL 24, 29, xxvii. 39, xxviiL i ; 1 Cor. xiv. 37 ; 2 Cor.
&+'
vfjuy;
We
L 14
(fjrcyvurrc rjfias <foro /icpov?).
Even although the gospel was itself Aoyog rrj? there was the possibility that as known by them it was imperfect ; hence this is added to guard them against the error of the false teachers, who insisted on supplementing it by their philoIv dXijOci?.
6Xrj$ia<:f
sophy
7.
(iL 8, 28).
This gives them a further nates ijidOcTc diri 'Em&tpcL assurance as to the source of their Christianity ; the apostle gives his seal to the teaching of Epaphras, which conveyed the full gospel of the grace of God, so that having received this in truth as they did, they had no need to listen to strange teachers. Epaphras appears from iv. 12 to have been a Colossian ; either a native, or now reckoned as an inhabitant of Colossae. From the present passage we gather that he was the founder of the Church there (compare the Kalofc and <ty' ijs i^cpa?.) He was at this time a fellow-prisoner of St Paul (Philemon 23) or perhaps owuxpaAcdtos there only means that he was so constantly with St Paul as practically to share his captivity. As the name is a shortened form of Epaphroditus, it was natural to conjecture that the Epaphroditus of Phil iL 25 was the same person. But the names were common, occurring frequently in inscriptions ; and as Epaphroditus appears to be in close connexion with the Philippians (whose dVocrroXos he was), there is no sufficient ground for the identification.
:
to9 dyawrrrofi awSoijAou
^P6 "*
6 Tychicus
(iv.
7) is called
20O
[!
crwSovXos, the servitude being, of course, to Christ This designation appears intended to command high respect for Epaphras, who
thus placed as near as possible to the apostle. 2$ fori mores dvdp f\yv SkUopos tow Xpurrou. See note on the reading. The reading rjfuav makes Epaphras a representative of St Paul in preaching the gospel at Colossae ; probably at the time when the apostle was dwelling for two years at Ephesus, at which time " all that dwelt in Asia heard the word of the Lord Jesus " (Acts xix. 10). This would explain the attitude of authority which St Paul assumes in this Epistle towards a Church which he had not himself seen. SuIkovos has clearly its general meaning "minister," not the special sense " deacon," as the genitive t9 Xpurrov shows. This designation of him as vim-os wrcp ^pv, *.r.A., serves still further to confirm the confidence of the Colossians in their first teacher. If
is is read, forip V*>" would mean "for your benefit," not " instead of you," for there is no personal reference here, as in Philemon 13, Iva wrkp <rov /tot &ulkov. The genitive rov Xpiorov is, indeed, decisive of this, for this implies that his ministry was one of spiritual benefit, which would not be suitable to a messenger from the Colossians to St PauL
ifuav
There are two rather important varieties of reading in ver. 7. The Rec Text has ical after *a0<fr on comparatively weak authority, viz. D3747 # Gi7P Vulg. Syr. Pesh. and other Svr-Harcl. Arm., against koI was doubtless added from assimilation to the two preceding Yen. KaBCn koL ral&f 4fiA0tr without kcU can only mean that Epaphras was their
ABCD
KL
first
teacher.
other important variation is between inrkp $?&* and inrkp fyiAy, and with respect to this there is a remarkable conflict between MSS. and versions, frife is read by K*ABD*G. Ambrosiaster (Comm. " qui eis ministravit gratiam Christi vice Apostoli").
&fi&r
The
by
KCDto K LP and most MSS.
versions, however, are nearly all on the side of fyu&r, Vulg. Syr. Chrys. also interprets fy*wr. (both) Boh. Arm. Eth. Goth. The other Greek comm. are silent as to the word in their comments, and the reading in their texts, which is d/x&r, may be due to editors. Of the old Latin, d (and e) M with f have " vobis " (against the Greek F), while g has " nous (agree-
The
ing with G). First, " for your benefit " would hardly Internal evidence favours tifuhr. dpwr, but either by 1/aQw, cf. di&xovov rtptroftty, Rom. be expressed by The form of expression does not indicate xv. 8, or i>/ur, as in I Pet. i. 12. that any emphasis on " for your benefit " is intended, as if the apostle meant to impress on the Col. that whatever Epaphras had done was for their good. Secondly, it is easy to understand how vûv might be substituted for tytAr, partly on account of the recurrence of Owip i/pfo in the neighbouring context (w. 3, 9) and in connexion with this, from the significance of iin&r not being understood. The two words being pronounced alike, these circumstances would naturally lead to tyuS* being written by mistake in the first instance, and the second to its preference when both readings were deliberately compared. On the other hand, Meyer thinks that 1)fiwp is due to the influence of the preceding 4pp and the following ^/uSr. Editors differ in their judgment
Mp
X. 8, 0]
201
Lachm. Treg. WH. Lightfoot, RV. Barry, Moule adopt IjfiQr, tpQv being given a place in the margin by WH. RV. On the other hand, Tisch. Meyer, Ell. Eadie, Soden prefer fy*3r. Eadie But there is in support of this points out that ifiwp would include Timothy. no reason why Timothy should be so pointedly excluded, as would have been the case had ifioO been used, any more than with <rw6otj\ov and tojXtkrof.
8. 6 Kal $i)\&ras ^juk rf|r Apt? Aydirnr ir Trvi$u.an, viz. their love to St Paul in particular. This appears clear from f}fuv -njv v/w!iv, as well as from the subsequent &a rovro koX v/Uk. The words may be regarded as a courteous justification of the didactic tone which the apostle adopts, and perhaps also as an indication that Epaphras had not made any complaint of the Colossians. Meyer (reading v/uov) understands love to Epaphras; Ellicott, brotherly love. iv wev/uiTi expresses the ground of their love, which was not individual sympathy, personal acquaintance, or the like, but belonged to the sphere of the Holy Spirit's influence. It was ofl ov\ fap&cun to trapKiicj, dAAA irvcvfjuariKiq, Oecum. Compare irpSawrov fiov iv <rapKi (ii. 7). 9-13. Prayer for their advancement in spiritual knowledge, not speculative, but practical. 0. AiA TouTo. On account, namely, of all that has preceded from ver. 4 ; c 1 Thess. ii. 4. Chrys. strikingly observes : KaOairtp iv Tots aywrw fccivovs puaXurra Stcycijpo/icv tovs tyyte oVras T79 wjo}s" ovro 817 fcal 6 IlavXos tovtovs fxdXurra irapajraAct rote to teal îc??, "we also," by irXiov KaTvpOwKoras. Cf. Eph. L 15. its position emphasises the transition from the conduct of the Colossians to its effect on the apostle and his friends. &+' 4)s V|uipos îcouaapcK echoes the similar expression in ver. 6. So the apostle's prayer was, as it were, an echo of their faith. An encouragement to them to proceed as they had begun. 06 myej&eOa irpoffcuxopevot. Called by Ellicott Cf. Eph. L 16. n an " affectionate hyperbole ; yet it is hardly to be called a hyperbole, for it would at no moment be true to say that he had ceased It is not asserted that the expression of the to pray for them. prayer was uninterrupted. As they did not cease to grow and bear fruit, so he did not cease to pray. Cf. Acts v. 42, ovk imvovTO StoaoTcovrc?, k.t.A., and contra, Acts xiii. 10, o& vnwrg ical aiTov/icvot, K.T.A., adds the huurrpi^mv, and 1 Sam. xiL 23. special request to the more general irpoo-wxpfiwou Compare Mk. xi. 24, Sou Trpo<rV)(a$ teal an-cto^c fra after words like O&w, aZrcurfat, signifies merely the purport of the wish or prayer; cf. PhiL L 9, where tovto as object of irpoorciiyofuu is explained by fva irAi/pw^rc r^v Myvwriv. For the
&m
accusative,
compare PhiL
i.
11,
ircirkrjpvfiwoi tcapirov Succuoovvrp,
"that ye
may be
perfected in,* Oltramare.
hrlyvwrtv, stronger
202

i
[X.
than yv&ris: see
Cor.
xiii.
12.
The
difference, however,
seems
to be rather that the former
word implies a more
active exercise of
faculty,
and hence lends
itself better to
the expression of practical
This distinction agrees well with Rom. L 21, 28. Compare on the verb, ver. 6. Lightfoot remarks that twtyvwns is a favourite word in the later Epistles of St Paul ; but, in fact,
knowledge.
although
it
it occurs four times in this Epistle and twice in Eph., used only once in PhiL (L 9), whereas it is thrice used in Rom. In the later Epistles, however, it is always used in reference to spiritual knowledge. See Trench, Syn. lxxv. tou OcXVjpaTos aoTou. The following context, w. 10-12, shows that what is meant is the Divine will as to their conduct, as in iv. 12 ; x Thess. iv. 3, v. 18 ; Rom. xii. 2 ; not the x*PL* mentioned as the object of their knowledge in ver. 6 (&a rov vtou irpwrayarOat fjpas avr<3, ovkcti ii dyylW, Chrys. etc.). The knowledge which is here meant is, in fact, the consequence of that which is there attributed to them. Knowing the x^P*9> *hey should know also that what God required of them was nothing but conduct corresponding thereto. This in opposition to the false teachers and the
is
doctrines of their
<f>ihxro<t>(a.
iv itfcrg ooîa ical ovviati mtctifumitfj.
" In
all spiritual
wisdom
and understanding,"
v\ifpu)$rjvai is carried out,
the being taken with both substantives. To connect w. with oWcm alone would be to give the inappropriate meaning, "wisdom of all kinds and spiritual understanding." On o-o^ta see Eph. L 8, where the words are iv vAujf <ro^t? teal These three, ao^Ca, 4>p6vryns9 crweo-ts, are reckoned by <f>povycri. Aristotle as the three intellectual <Spcrat or excellences (Eth. N. i. 13), the first being the most general and thorough, embracing the knowledge of first principles as well as that of particulars while he distinguishes ^ponprt? as the practical knowledge of particulars from avv<rKt which is critical ; 17 <f>p6vrj<ri<: ^titcuctucij l<rnv . Demosth. (269. 24) . 1} 8k orweo-w KptTiiclj (EfA. N. vL 7. n). defines crwcois, jj rk KaXa #cal aUrxpa SiayvtlxrKcrat, which agrees with Aristotle's Kpvruc/j. It would appear, therefore, that crwecrts was the faculty of deciding what was right or wrong in particular But cases, while o-wfUa apprehended the general principles. crweorts is used by St. Paul in a more general sense; see Eph. iiL 4 ; cf. Luke ii. 47. The two words frequently occur together in die O.T., e.g. Ex. xxxL 3; Isa. xxix. 14; Eccles. xiv. 20; (1 Cor. L 19 is a quotation), and the corresponding adjectives in Matt xL 25. nvcv/iartirp, given by the Spirit. Compare z Cor. xiL 8, $ fiev Stk rov TrvfvjjutiTOS SiSoroi Aoyo? orxf>ias. The word is emphatic in this position, marking the contrast
introducing the
manner
in which
and vdtrg and
wevfixiTucj}
X.
10]
203
had Xoyov o-wfrlas, a pretence of 23) which really proceeded from 6 yofc rrj<s trap/cos (ii. 1 8). have the apostle's a-otfUa aapKiPcq, 2 Cor. L 1 2 ; foOpmrhnt), 1 Cor. ii. 5, 13 ; rov koc/iov tovtov, i Cor. ii. 6, eta similar expression 10. irpiira ri)o s too Kuptoo. occurs 1 Thess. ii. 1 2, a(uos rov 0cov and Eph. iv. 1, rfc jcAiprcci*, " in a manner worthy of," /.ft befitting your connexion with Him. The infinitive expresses the consequence (and proof) of trXrfpÔrjva^ Act r irtbrct <rv{cvyv\xrt r^v iroAircu&i', Chrys.
with the false teaching, which
wisdom
(ii.
We
<
>
If tytaf after TeptTarfyrai were genuine (Text Rec), the infinitive might conceivably be regarded as dependent on x/xxrevxfyioot ; but it is certainly It is added BC # spurious, being omitted by K* 17, at. Clem., Boh. P, most mss. Chrys. Theodoret, Ann. in K D*
D G
KL
1
Zft " so as to please God in every way." Thess. iv. 5, xa>* Set v/ia* ircotiraxciv teal &p<rKiv c<ji. In classical authors ApcoWa has generally an unfavourable sense, " obsequiousness," and it is so denned both in Eth. Eudem, (to Polybius Xiav wpbs ffiovrjv, il 3) and by Theophrastus (Char. 5). uses it especially of trying to gain the favour of a sovereign. Similarly Philo, vdvra teal Aryciv kol vpdrTty cWovoa&v cfc <$/xctkciv rov varpoc *cal fjaatXiux (i. p. 34), but he also uses it of pleasing God. The dvfyawrois apio-Ktiv is disavowed by the apostle in Gal. The verb is used, how1 Thess. ii. 4 ; compare ch. iii. 22. i. 10 ; ever, without any unfavourable connotation, in Rom. xv. 2 (r$
cfe ircurar dpcffuctap.
Compare
irXrjo-Cov
cV
dpco-xeno) and elsewhere. iram ?py? &ya0$ qualifies the
qualifies the
following participle.
KOfnro<l>opovvTS
and
avtav6jxvoi
following, as Iv v&rg oWfict Most commentators separate but then av(. tq hriyvwri becomes
iviyvwnv, ver. 9. Moreover, the combination icapiroôpov/icvov #cal av$. in ver. 6 seems to require What that the two participles here also should be taken together. is true of the gospel in the world and amongst the Colossians is also to hold good of those whose lives are inspired by its teaching. The participles refer to the logical subject of ircpMrem/o-ai, not to rjj Myvwr irov Btov, Cf. Eph. iv. 2. vkffpw$rjT (Beza, Bengel). "by the knowledge of God," instrumental dative, a frequent use of the dative with avfav. (So Alford, Eadie, Ellicott, Lightfoot, Soden, RV.mg.) The fruitfulness and growth are wrought through the cirtyvoxri? rov 0cov, and this again results from the practice of
tautologous with v\rfpwOrjr
rrjy
his will, ver. 9.
Some commentators take the dative as one of reference, as in Rom. iv. 20 ft), " increasing in the knowledge of God " (Moule, RV. text), which, after vXrjpiaOrjrt rrjv bnyv. ver. 9, would be
f
somewhat of a
tautology.
B C D* rg Arryrctoi is the reading of K #r is prefixed in R" 47, and a few others, Chrys.
GP
17, /. Amiat. Arm. a/. Old Lat and Vulg-Clem
204

K
[L 11
have " in scientia Dei," which is doubtful. Text. Rec. has ef? t^f Myruatv, with D L most mss., Theodoret, Theoph. Oec. This appears to be an attempt to simplify the construction. Meyer, on the contrary, regards the dative as an explanation of the more difficult (?) els t^p At., which, he thinks, is also confirmed by the parallelism in structure of the other participial clauses, which conclude with a definition introduced by tit. He understands it as " in respect of," that is, always more fully attaining to a knowledge of God, els indicating the final reference, or direction of the growth, comparing Eph. iv. 15 and 2 Pet i. 8. As to the comparative difficulty of tne readings, Alford's judgment, that the simple dative "is by far the most difficult of the readings," is surely more correct than Meyer's, three e/t Hjw Myp. would,
in fact, present
no
difficulty to the
ordinary reader.
Theodoret takes this fr as instrumental, rg Otlq powjj Kparwoficvoi, and so Eadie, Ellicott, and Meyer. " Strengthened with all (every form of) strength," E1L (a
11. iv ird<rn ouyrfpo ourapoupcvoc.
translation
which
is itself
ambiguous).
to understand
It is simpler
(/.*.
and more natural
h n\
8.
as "in
It thus
in the matter of) all strength " (Alford, Lightfoot).
corresponds with iv
subjective.
itoxtq o-wfUa and cv iravrl <fpyy, which are both SwapovfucvoL, present, " becoming strengthened" The
is not used elsewhere by St. Paul, who, however, employs froWa/tovo-Au several times. But oWa/ioixrlai is in Heb. xl 34, and B has it in Eph. vi. 10. It is frequently used by the Greek translators of the O.T., but is not a classical word. The connected virtues here, vwopovrj and (uucpoOvfAia, indicate that what is referred to in this clause is steadfastness under trial, as the former referred to active conduct Ken* to Kprfros Tfjs &4{v|$ c^Tou. " According to the might of His glory." Strength is supplied in a manner correspondent with the power which belongs to the glory of God, i.e. His majesty as manifested to men. Compare Eph. L 19. The rendering of AV. (Beza, etc), " His glorious power," is sufficiently refuted by avrov. Thomas Aquinas understands by " His glory," " His Son Christ But although the Son may be called a-n-avyourtia t^s S6(rj^ Jesus." afoot), it would not be intelligible to use 17 ooa avrov as a subLightfoot remarks that tcpdros in N.T. is stitute for His name. "applied solely to God" ; but see Heb. ii. 14, rbv to *paro? ixpvra
simple verb
rov Oavarov, rovr lari rov 8ta/?oAov.
faopom^ ical uMnpoBvplaK "To all endurance and "Patience" is a very inadequate rendering of wro/iovij, which includes perseverance or steadfast continuance in a course of action. Thus we have Kapirofopowrw iv xnrofxovjj, Luke
cl ircUraK
longsuffering."
viiL
15;
xnrofiovrf
Ipyov AyaOov,
Rom.
iL 7
&*
xhroftovrjs rpôiftcv,
Heb. xiL 1. Even the vwopmnq of Job, to which James refers, was by no means the uncomplaining endurance of suffering to which we give the name of "patience." Job was, in fact, the very reverse of "patient"; but he maintained his faith in God and his uprightness in spite of his sore trials. paKpoOvpta comes much
L 11]
205
n nearer to our notion of " patience (cf. i Cor. xiii. 4) ; not so much, however, patience under suffering, but "the self-restraint which does not hastily retaliate a wrong." It is the opposite of ov0v/ua. Chrysostom distinguishes the two words thus: paxooAytci t irpos ItfctKov? ovs oWarov jcai afivvaoticu' \nrofiVi Sk ow ov Swarm AfivvatrOai; but this, though correct as to ftaxpo^v/xi, is clearly
inadequate for vtto/acvci. 11, 19. pcT& x a P*$ c6xapi<rrouKTc$. fiera XPP** is joined by many comm. to the preceding (Theodoret, Olsh. De W. Alf. Eadie, In defence of this it is said that cvxapurretv of Lightfoot, RV.). itself implies joyfulness, so that firra x- if attached to it would be flat and unmeaning ; also that by joining the words with cvx- we Lightfoot, quoting lose the essential idea of joyful endurance. orav irci/Mur/AO?? ircpcircoifrc Jas. L 2, 3, tratrav go/My i/Yi}owr0c . .
.
votxiXoi?, ytvaHTKorrcs ore to Sokijjuov vfitav rfjs irurr/cos Kareoyafcrai
remarks that this parallel points to the connexion with the preceding, and adds that the emphatic position of the words if connected with cfy. cannot be explained It may be replied that See, for example, cvxapioTCiv does not necessarily imply joy. 1 Cor. xiv. 18, "I thank God, I speak with tongues more than you all/' x. 30 ; CoL iii. 17. xaP^'s k so &* ^rom heing flat or unmeaning, that without it cvxaowrrowrc? would be too weak. The idea of joyful endurance is not lost when the prayer passes from endurance to joyful thanksgiving; and the emphatic position of the words is sufficiently explained by the writer's desire to emphasise this characteristic of their thanksgiving with special reference to The words thus the trials implied in vwofwrj and fuucpo$v/uaL acquire greater significance than if they slipped in as it were after paKpo&vfuav. The connexion with cvxapurrowrcs is also favoured by the structure of the preceding clauses, each of which commences with a defining adjunct This connexion is adopted by Chrys. Theoph. Oecum., also Ellicott, Meyer, Soden, Lachm. Tisch. In any case cty- is not to be connected with ov vavo/icla, as Chrys. Theoph. a/., which unnaturally separates this clause from the preceding, making them parenthetical This interpretation was suggested by the reading w*as: but even if that is correct, the transition from the second person to the first is quite in St Paul's
{nroftovrjv,
manner;
cf.
ii.
12, 13.
designation of God thus absolutely as 6 Ilon/p, Christ has not been named immediately before (as in Rom. vL 5; Eph. ii 18; Acts L 4, 7, ii. 33), is remarkable. But we have rou KvpCov in ver. 10, and, what is perhaps more to the point, tov vlov ttjs aydmf: avrov in ver. 13.
t$ narpL
The
when
K 37
(G, Gf
rarpt),
Vulg-Gem. Bob. al
prefix
6c$ varpL
t$ Uairtram tyri*
" Who
qualified you," or " made
you com*
206
petent,"
(only),
i.e.

given you a
title.
[r 12
iiL 6 " qualified US
The same
verb occurs 2 Cor.
fc koI ticavQxrcv
rjfxas Siatcovovs kcuvtjs SuidrJKrp,
to be ministers," cf. id. ver. 5. The adjective Uavds is of frequent occurrence in the N.T., always with the idea of reaching to a
certain standard, " sufficient," and so when time or quantity is in question, "considerable." See Mark xv. 15 ; Luke xxiL 38, hcavov iari : Acts xxiL 6, </>ois ucavov : 2 Cor. iL 16, irpbs ravra We txavos 2 Tim. iL 2, oirtvcs ucavol hrovrai koX kripovs 8i8aat. It does not
mean
tion
is
"dignus," "worthy," although with a negative that translanot unsuitable in Matt iiL 1 1, viii. 8. Here, then, ucovoxrcv not "dignos fecit," Vulg., but "idoneos fecit"
is
There
is
an important variety of reading.
by
KACDKLP most mss., Vulg.

in
For Iranta-am (which is read Boh. Syr. (both), Chrys. etc.) we have
brosiaster
17 80, Goth. Arm. Eth., also Didymus (once), Amwhile B has *aX6ram ml Uavckrarri, which is adopted by Lachm., but appears to be a combination of both readings. The confusion between TQIIKANOCANTI and TOIKAAECANTI would be easy, and the latter word would naturally occur to a copyist ifficis is the reading of K B 4 23 80 115, Amiat Syr-Pesh. marg. Eth. Didymus, Theoph. Ambrosiaster. most mss., Vulg-Qem. Fuld. Syr-Pesh. and Hard, Ilfias, text, Chrys. Theodoret, etc Internal evidence seems rather to favour fywtt. The natural tendency of scribes would be to generalise such a statement, and this would be assisted by On the other hand, it would be quite natural ilfiat which presently follows. for St Paul to enforce the exhortation involved in his prayer by such a personal application. In the next sentence, where he passes to a direct dogmatic statement, he naturally and of course uses yfuis. (Yet P, al. Amiat Goth, have tytaj there also.) Compare Eph. iv. 32, v. 2. fyub is adopted here by Tisch. WH. Soden, and is given a place in the margin by Tregelles,
Kakiaam
D*G
ACDGKLP
Lightfoot,
RV.
els tV pcpi&a too #c\^pou, "for, i.e. to obtain, the portion of the lot." Compare Ps. xv. 5, Kvpioc /x*pts rrjs KXqpovofuas pav. Kkrjpo* (pp. "a lot") is not synonymous with kAt/povo/uo, it does not designate the whole, but the allotted part ; cf. Acts viii. 21, owe far* cot fipU ovSk kXtjoos : XXvL 18, tcXrjpov iv rots rjyiaxr/itvois. What is a /upU in reference to the whole is a *A%>o? in reference The genitive, then, is one of apposition, "the to the possessor. portion which consists in the lot " (Lightfoot, Soden). It is, however, possible to understand it as partitive, "to have a share in the #cA%>os," and so most comm. Chrysostom observes: out
kXtjoov icoXci; Scikvvc
on
ovSct? diro KaropSmfidriav oIkUv /fcurtActac
rvvxavn, referring to Luke xvii. 10. Compare also Luke xil 32, cvoofci^rcy 6 varifp Vfiwv oouvai vfuv ttjv /fturtAWav. iv t$ 4rrL Chrys. Oec. Theoph. followed by Meyer, al, connect with ucavokrajTi, " by the light," ucavow b> r$ tfxDrl being nothing else but KaXeLv cfc to <^ws (1 Pet iL 9) regarded in its moral efficacy, the result of which is that men are <* hr Kvpup (Eph. v. 8). This light has power, it is the light of life (John
18]
POSITIVE INSTRUCTION
207
its weapons (Rom. xiiL 12); produces fruit (Eph. etc; and without it men were incapable of partaking in the kingdom of Christ But 4"? is not the means, but the result ; and, moreover, the distance of iv t< <fxarC from Uav. forbids the connexion, for there is no such emphasis on the words as to account for their position. It is the deliverance that is the thought dwelt on, not the means. It is better to connect the word with rqv pcpi'So, k.t.A. (Alf. Lightfoot), or, if with one of the three substantives, with tckrjpov, which has a local sense (Eilicott, Soden). Thus fr ry fanl = "in the kingdom of light" Compare 2 Cor. xl 14; 1 Tim. vL 16; 1 John L 7; Rev. xxL 24. Kkrjpo* b t<5 ^hotC, then, is equivalent to the ikvU &iroKtfirrj br rots ovpavol% <f>Ck being here chosen because the apostle had already in his thoughts the representation of the natural condition of men as ovcoros. There is nothing, therefore, in the objection, that if this were the sense intended cv rot? ovpavoZs would have been used, or iv r fo^, or the like. Eadie's interpretation, "the inheritance which consists in light," is untenable, and is certainly not supported by his examples of icX^pos iv from Acts viii. 21, xxvL 18. 18 it From the prayer for their increase in knowledge, St. Paul goes on to give them positive instruction which will be a safeguard against the false teaching which threatens them. They have already been translated from the kingdom of darkness to the kingdom of God's beloved Son, and it is in Him only that they have redemption.
viii.
12); has
v. 9),
18. 6s ippuaaTO 4{ou?ia$ too okotous.
(ipvaaro,
ore
B*
a>s
GP
Lightf.)
4jjia$
Ik
tJJs
" Who rescued us from the power of darkalxj*d\wroi

JraAcuiropov/uLcla.
ness."
ippvo-aro,
Scucvvt
Theoph. l(owrla (from Ifeon), properly means " liberty of action," as in 1 Cor. ix. 5; hence in relation to others, "authority," generally "delegated authority" (but not always; see Jude 25). Lightfoot, following Wetstein, maintains that the word here means c arbitrary power, tyranny." But the instances he cites seem quite | insufficient to support this. In Demosth., for example, De Falsa Leg. p. 428, ttjv ayay ravrqv covow, it is the word ayav that introduces the idea of excess, just as we might speak of the "excessive exercise of authority." From the etymology of the word it is applicable, whether the i&lvai is assumed or rightfully derived. Whatever its use, however, in Plutarch or other writers, the usage of the N.T. gives no support to Light/oofs view. It is a word of very frequent occurrence (being found nearly one hundred times), and always in the simple sense of "authority" (abstract or concrete). If the "idea of disorder is involved" in tj t$owrta rov encorovs here and in Luke xxiL 53, it is suggested by encoTow, not by l$cwrta. When Chrysostom, after explaining r$? iiovo-ia? by r$s rvpomSo^ adds x<*Airdv* *oi to dvXm clvcu vro ry itafioXy' to teal jut tfowrias, rovro \aXjrwuntpot his
:
&
"
208

:
\JL
14
meaning seems to be " It is hard to be simply under the power of the devil ; but that he should also have authority is still harder." This gives much more force to his words. That i(owria is not opposed to /fcunXcta, as an arbitrary tyranny to a well-ordered sovereignty, see Rev. xil 10, $ (iaxrduia rov cov iJ/iwv *ot 17 The whole passage is strikingly i(cwrCa rov Xpurrov avrov. parallel to Acts xxvi 18, tov IwiaTpoj/ai diro aKorovs cfe ^k ko\ H75 i$owrfas rov Sarava hrl rov cov, tov Xa/}eiv avrov? a<riv o-kotos here IS not to be dfiapTtwv teal Kkrjpov iv roi? rjyuaxr/Uvois. regarded as personified, as if it were equivalent to "the devil (Augustine) ; it is rather the characteristic and ruling principle of the region in which they dwelt before conversion to Christ teal \ur4<m\aty. The verb is appropriate, being that which is employed by classical writers to signify the removal of whole bodies of men. Yet it is doubtful whether such an idea is present here ; cf. Plato, Rep. viL p. 518 A, Ik tc tfmrbs cfe o-kotos
fi$iaTafAyiav teal Ik o-jcoYov? cfe
<fnfc.
Not of angels, as the false teachers tou uloG*ri)$ dydinis afrroo. would have it vwd rov Kkypovopjov icfiv9 ov% vwb rovs oUtra^
Severianus.
Augustine understands this as a genitive -n}? ayamp avrov. "Caritas quippe Patris . . nihil est quam ejus "auctoris." ipsa natura atque substantia . . . ac per hoc films caritatis ejus nullus est alius quam qui de ejus substantia est genitus* (De Trin. xv. 19). He is followed by Olshausen and Lightfoot But such a form of expression has no analogy in the N.T. Love
not the "substantia" or "natura" of God, but an essential An action might be ascribed to it, but not the generation of a person. Theodore of Mopsuestia interpreted the expression in an Opposite way vlov aydmp avrov &c<A.c<rcy fc ov jtwru rov Harpbs oVra vlcv <2AA* AyawQ rip vio6Wia? dio>0cvra rovnov. But an explanation of the nature of the Sonship would be alien to the The simplest interpretation is, "the Son who is the context object of His love." It corresponds exactly with Eph. L 6, iv Tcp rryainifjLcvip br $ ?x/A<1'> k.t.A., only that it gives more prominence to the attribute. Love is not merely bestowed upon Him, but makes Him its own. vlbs 48vvip pov in Gen. xxxv. 18 (Meyer, Ellicott) is not parallel. Lightfoot thinks this interpretation destroys the whole force of It is because Christ is the the expression; but it is not so. central object of God's love that those who have been translated into His kingdom are assured of the promised blessings thereof, 14. Ir ?xfJLCK' k.t.X. = Eph. L 7.
is
attribute.
The words &a red aX/iarot aCrroO of the Rec Text are an interpolation Vulg-Qem. from Eph. i. 7, They are found in many minuscules, and
15]
PRE-EMINENCE OF CHRIST
209
Demid. Syr-Pesh. Arm., Theodoret, Oec ; but apparently not in any uncial nor in the other versions. For fxofuw B, Boh. Arab. (Lips. Bedwell) read l<rxpiuw. In the parallel passage, Eph. L 7, K*D* (not the Latin d) Boh. Eth., Irea. Lightfoot thinks that this reading in Eph. was a (transL) nave $txpiuv. harmonistic change to conform to the text which these authorities or their predecessors found in Col., and judges that l<rxM** is possibly the correct reading here. WH. also give it a place in the margin. Yet it is hard to suppose that St Paul wrote different tenses in the two places. Moteover, taxofiew does not appear to be a suitable tense ; if past time were to be expressed, we should expect 4*xtKa (<& Rom. v. 2). Weiss rejects it
tV tycoi? tAt Apapn&r. This expression does not occur in the Epistles of St Paul elsewhere, but twice in his speeches in Acts (xiii. 38, xxvl 18). In Eph. L 7 we have the equivalent, vapavTuyfjuLTw ; generally in the Epp. he prefers the a<fx<riv more positive Sucaiocn/ny. Lightfoot suggests that the studied precision in the definition of diroAvrpuxri? points to some false conception of dn-oA. put forward by the heretical teachers. Later Gnostics certainly did pervert the meaning of the term. Irenaeus relates of the Marcosians that they held ctwu rcXctav faroXvrpwriv tijv hrtyvtoa-iy rev dpprjrov /*cyc'0ovs (i. 21. 4). HippolytUS Says : Aeyowi ifxavji dpprjTtp liriTidcvTCS \lpa t<J> rrgy airoXvrpoxriv In the baptismal formula of the Xafttrrt, tcrX (Haer. vi. 41). Marcosians are the words cfe cvwlv koX dn-oAvrpoKriv kcu fcoivuvtav cwaficoiF (Iren. L 2 1. 3), where the last words " surely mean communion with the (spiritual) powers." In an alternative formula, also given by Irenaeus, the words are cfc kvrpwnv oyycXucTv, which is explained by Clem. Alex. {Exc. Theod. 1* * s not likely that there was p. 974) as fjy jcal dyycAoi <Lx 0WTLy* any historical connexion between these later Gnostics and the Colossian heretics; but, as Lightfoot observes, "the passages quoted will serve to show how a false idea of an-oAvrpoKri? would naturally be associated with an esoteric doctrine of angelic powers." 15-17. The pre-eminence of Christ. In His essential nature He is above all created things^ being the image of the invisible God; and more than that, all things have been created through Him and held
tw
aMp
tw
together by
Him.
15. 3s &rriK, k.t.X.
On
this verse
excursus.
The arrangement
Lightfoot has a valuable of the passage 15-20 is twofold.
We have,
first, the relation of Christ to God and the world, 15-17 and, secondly, His relation to the Church, 18 ff. This division is indicated in the construction of the passage by the repeated ere fr avnSj 16, 19, introducing in each case the reason of the preceding statement The relation to the Church begins with kcu avTos, ver. 18. Some commentators regard 15-17 as descriptive of the Word before the Incarnation, the Aoyo* do-apxo?; and 18-20, of the Incarnate Word, Adyos farapK&s. But this is inconsistent with Iarw9
14
2IO
"is,"

which shows that St Paul
is
[X.
15
speaking of Christ in His present
rw cfayycA/ov rfc &6(rp tov Xptorou, At cVriv cLcw tov Ocou. The exalted Christ is now and continues to be what He was in His own nature as the Word before He became incarnate, John zviL 5.
glorified state.
Compare
2 Cor. iv. 4, toy <f>wLcrfiov
primarily an image (so in Rev. often, comp. Matt nrii. ao) from i/tofupa, which expresses mere resemblance, whereas cfasV implies representation of an archetype. aflnf yap *U6*ot <f>hrit fjUfirjfia etra* tov dpxerfarov (Greg. Naz. Orat. 30). It may be used, therefore, to express resemblance in some essential character. So in Heb. x. 1, clirc&r is conCompare I Cor. xv. 49, rip eUbra rod x<**0 *& trasted with rind. oUu rod twovpawlov : Rom. viii. 29, ovfifibpfow rijs cUbvot rod UoO atroO, an idea expressed again 2 Cor. iii. 18, rip a(rr)jr eUbwa pcrafAOfxpovfitOa : and Col. iii. IO, row dvaKcurotjievo* mr* *Ubva rod ktIouvtoi airrbw. An allusion to Gen. i. 26, 28. With the same allusion in 1 Cor. rL 7 the apostle calls the man eU&r ml ftdga 6co0. This last passage, in particular, forbids our adopting the view of some commentators, that the expression denotes " the eternal Son's perfect equality with the Father in respect of His substance, nature, and eternity " (Ellicott, quoting HiL D* Syn. 73 : " perfectae aequalitatis signiflcantiam habet similitudo.''). As Lightfoot remarks : " The idea of perfection does not lie in the word itself, but must be sought from the context, e^g, raw rb rk^pwfui, ver. 19." The expression is frequently used by Philo in reference to the Logos, o\g. tow dbparow teal woijrbr 6ttow \6yow tUbva \4yei OeoO {> Mund, Op. 8, Opp* I. p. 6) ; X6yo? 84 4<mw cU&v OeoO 81* 08 otifiras 6 xbafios Hhjuiovpycno (De Monarch, ii. 5, II. p. 225) ; and notably De Sommis, I. p. 656, KaBdrep rip &w$ijkuf atiyti* wt ipuow ol fi^j 8wd/uPot row IjXiow afro* Idctr bp&n . . . otirut ml rip rod OeoO eUbva, to* AyyeXor atirod Xbyor, <2* airrbw mrawoodcu
is
cU4r
It differs
Compare with
1,
Closely allied to
3,
John xiv. 9, 6 4vpaicCn 4pi idpaicew row roripa. eU&w is xapoimjp, similarly applied to Christ in Heb. Ar dwa6yaa/ta rijt 86^s ml xapairrfy) rift inroffrdffettt atVoQ.
this
toO dopdrou.
This word, which by
its
position also
is
emphatic,
makes prominent the contrast with the cucwi', the visibility of which Compare Rom. L 20, ra dopara avrov . . . is therefore implied roi9 irot^fuuri voovpeva KaOoparau Here Christ is the visible manifestation of the invisible. Chrysostom, indeed, and the Nicene and post-Nicene Fathers, argued that, as the archetype is invisible, SO must the image be, rj rov dopdrov cuco)? kol avrrj aoparos jcot
6ftoiW doparos. But, as Lightfoot says, "the underlying idea of the etxtuv, and, indeed, of the Aoyos generally, is the manifestation of the hidden." Compare John L 18, cov ouScU {a>pa*c h-umtotc" 6 /jiovoyyrp vtos (pj. ftovoycvq? 09), 6 ti>v efe toy koXttov tow varoos, Ikuvo* trjyq<raTo$ and xiv. 9, quoted above. irpwrorotcos seems to have been a wporriTOKos ir<<n)s ktutci$. recognised title of the Messiah (see Heb. L 6), perhaps derived
from Ps.
lxxxix. 28, eyo> irpoyroroKov Orj<rop.aL avrov,
which
is
inter-
preted of the Messiah by R. Nathan in Shemoth Rabbay 19, foL Israel is called God's firstborn (Ex. iv. 22 ; Jer. xxxi. 9), 118. 4. and hence the term was readily transferred to the Messiah, at the ideal representative of the race.
L 15]
The
genitive here
is
21
not
partitive, as
the following context

Setting this aside,
clearly shows, for cv avr<p iicrio&Q
ra vdvra.
commentators are not agreed as to the interpretation of wpwroroKos. Eadie, Hofmann, a/. 9 understand it of sovereignty. Alford and
creation,
Lightfoot, while giving the first place to the idea of priority to all admit sovereignty over all creation as part of the connotation. So Theodore of Mops., ov* xpovov Acycroi p&vov AXXa
yap kcu hrl vporiurjatw (but he interprets #crurco>? of the new In defence of this interpretation of the word Ps. creation). lxxxviii. 28 is quoted, where after vpworoKov (hfeopM avr6v the explanation is added, tyi?Aov mpa rots /WiAcvcri t^s yjys : also what appears as a paraphrase of this, c&pccv KXrjpovofiov warrtav, Heb. also Ex. iv. 22 ; Rom. viiL 29, cis to cTvoi avrov vpunoroKov i. 2 k iroAXois aStXôis. Job xviil 13, "the firstborn of death," for "a fatal malady"; and Isa. xiv. 30, "the firstborn of the poor," Lightfoot quotes R. for "the very poor," are also referred to. Bechai, who calls God Himself the firstborn of the world, and he concludes that the words signify " He stands in the relation of irp. to all creation," i.e. " He is the Firstborn, and as the Firstborn the
:
absolute Heir and Sovereign Lord of all creation." The passages cited do not justify this interpretation. In Ex. iv. 22 the word does not at all mean "sovereign," which would be quite out of place even apart from the prefixed " my," but "object of favour." In Ps. Ixxxviii. 28, again, the added words, if taken as an explanation of vpwr. simply, would go too far ; but it is the irpwrdroicos of God, who is said to be "higher than the kings of the (MjcropM. avrov wp. is, " I will put him in the position of a earth." firstborn," and the following words are not an explanation of irp., but state the result of God's regarding him as such. Compare the English phrase, " making one an eldest son by will" By no means would the words of the psalm justify such an expression as vpwr6tokos rG>v /JacnAcW, unless it were intended to include the irp. amongst the /fturiActt. As the context forbids our including the irpuTOTOKw; here amongst the KriW, the interpretation leaves the It is called " the genitive of reference " ; but genitive inexplicable. this is too vague to explain anything, as will appear by substituting Thus wowtotokos rov either KO<rpjov for jct&tccd^ or peyas for irpw. Kwrpov for "sovereign in relation to the world," and /iryas trwmji nrrurccos are equally impossible. If by "genitive of reference" is meant " genitive of comparison," then we come back to the relation of priority in irpurot. In fact, the genitive after irp. must be 1st, " genitive of possession, as " my firstborn," 2nd, partitive, " firstborn
of the class, or 3rd, of comparison, as in John
i.
15, ir/Mmfe
pov
ty.
moment's reflection will show that Isa. xiv. 30 is not parallel, for there "the firstborn of the poor" is included in the class. In
Job
xviii.
13 (which, moreover,
is
poetical) the genitive is posses-
212
sive,
[1.15
genitive, but
"death's chief instrument." Rom. viii. 29, there is no irp. is included ev iroXXoU dScAôi?. Ribbi Bechai's designation of God as "firstborn of the world" is a fanciful interpretation of Ex. xiiL 2. R. Bechai probably meart by the expression "priority," not "supremacy." The firstborn were to be consecrated to God because He was the First of til. But it must be remembered that the Hebrew word is not
ttymologically parallel to irpwToroico?. Hence the only tenable interpretation of the words before us is "begotten before woo-a ktutis," the genitive being like that in XTWT/XaTWV, John L 15, WpWTOTOKOV TOV 0OV JCCU TTpO WaVTW The only ideas involved are priority in Justin M. Dial. 100. time and distinction from the genus ktiW. ov\ &$ dScA^v cxw rrjv KTi<riv, dAA* d> irpd wdxrrp ktio-cow yevn/flcti, Theodoret ; and SO Chrysostom ou^t dia? *. Tipxp aXXa xpovov puovov iari otj/iovtikoV. Compare Rev. iiL 14, f) &p\H Tifc ktutcws tov 0cov. irpoiroirrioTos or irpuToVXao-Tos would have implied that Christ was created like
1W
ircura ktiVis.
active
Isidore of Pelusium, in the interests of orthodoxy, assigns an meaning to irpcaroroKos (to be in that case thus accented), not, however, a meaning corresponding to the signification of irpuroTcucos in classical writers, which is " primipara," and could
yield
no
ov irpSrrov rip
tolerable sense, but as " primus auctor." His words are *tmtcs . . . dXXa irpwrov avrov tctojccwu tout* ion
ven-OitfK^yai rrjv ktio-iv Iva
(Ep.
iiL 31).
Basil
TpLrqs ovWafifp 6$vfivrj% u>s irpan-OJCTi<rroc fl seems to adopt the same view, for, comparing
t
ver. 19, he says : ci & irpurorojcos vvcpwv tlprp-at, 81a to cutios dvat rrJ9 iv vtKpuiv diwrrao'ca)?, ovrm icai irpa>Toroicos xtiVccds, 81a to cutcoC
c&cu rov i ovk ovrmv cfc to ctwu wapayaytiv rrpr ktutiv (Contra lib. iv. p. 292 D). (The true reading in ver. 19 is irp. Ik twv vcKp&v, but irp. rtov v. is in Rev. i. 5.) This interpretation is followed by Michaelis and some others. In addition, however, to the unsuitableness of tuctciv in this connexion, irpwrov is unsuitable, since there would be no possibility of a ocvrcporojcof. vaxnp jcuVcws. mo-is in N.T. has three meanings: 1st, the act of creation (the primary meaning of m-uric as of " creation "), Rom. i. 20, diro KTio-cus Koa-fiov : 2nd, " creation " as the universe
Eunonu
of created things,
creation,"
Rom. viii. 22, irao-a 1; ktuti? crvorcvaci : 3rd, "a single created thing, Rom. viii. 39, ovri tis ktmtis iripa.
Here it may be questioned whether voxny: jm'o-cu>? means "all creation" (RV. Alford, Lightfoot, al.) or "every creature" (AV. Meyer, Ellicott, al.). In favour of the latter rendering is the absence of the article, which we should expect after irSs in the former sense. It may be replied that ktns belongs to the class of nouns which from their meaning may sometimes dispense with
1.
16]
21
yrj (Luke ii. 14 ; Heb. vf.iJ. 4), ovpavfc (Acts al\ Koafios (Rom. v. 13, xi. 12, 15, aJ.). Yet it is very rarely, and only in particular combinations, tiu.t these words are without the article. As an instance of *rtotv = the aggregate of created things being without the article, is died Mark xiii. 19, diro &PXV* KTivtws, the parallel in Matt xxiv. 2 1 having dV apyfc Kooytov. So also Matt x.6; 2 Pet iii. 4.
the article, such as

21,
iii.
But granting that here k6<t(ios (which might be questioned) the point to be noted is the anarthrous use, not of *rtb-i?,
but of the
mW
compound term dpxQ
mo-cft*, like
dpxn mxr/iov ; and
this is precisely parallel to the similar
which we
article.
use of KarapoXi) Kooyxov, have several times with faro and irpo, always without the
iv
So we have frequently aV apxfa
*px8t
Wpfc
Similarly, cfc tcXo?, ecos tcAovs, /tc'xP1 tcXovs. air' apxfc being regularly used without the article, it is in accordance with rule that in
apxv* *t the latter word should also be anarthrous. Moreover, even mxr/jo? and yrj, which are cited as examples of words occasionally anarthrous, do not dispense with the article when vas precedes, probably because of the possible ambiguity
euro
which
would result
for
There appears,
therefore,
no
sufficient
justification
from the natural rendering, "every created thing." This furnishes an additional reason against the interpretation which would include the irpwToroicos in vwra
departing
rrurts.
plainly directed against the errors of the false teachers,
This exposition of the unique and supreme position of Christ is who denied this supremacy.
The
history of the ancient interpretation of the expression
#ct., is interesting and instructive. The Fathers of the second and third centuries understand it correctly of the But when Eternal Word (Justin, Clem. Alex., Tert, Origen, etc.). the Arians made use of the expression to prove that the Son was a created being, many of the orthodox were led to adopt the view that the words relate to the Incarnate Christ, understanding, therefore, *TtW and KTtco-0ai of the new spiritual creation, the kouvj) ktmt. (Athanasius, Greg. Nyss., Cyril, Theodore Mops.) As Lightfoot observes, this interpretation " shatters the context," for, as a logical consequence, we must understand iv avr$ IktUtBti rk iraVra iv rots o6papots icai iwl rrjs yfjs and ver. 17 of the work of the Incarnation ; and to do this is " to strain language in a way which would reduce all theological exegesis to chaos." In addition to this, the interpretation disregards the history of the terms, and " takes no account of the cosmogomy and angelology of the false teachers against which the apostle's exposition here is directed." Basil prefers the interpretation which refers the expression to the Eternal Word, and so Theodoret and Severianus, and the later Greek
irporroroKo? t.
214

(Theoph. Oecumenius, etc).
clear.
[t 16
writers generally
is
Chrysostom's view
not
wdtnp
10. 8ti introduces the proof of the designation, vpmorotcos cr. It leaves, therefore, no doubt as to the meaning of that
and shows that the irpworoico? is not included in vara ra irdWa is equivalent to iraou icrtbrts. Iv afa$ is not simply &* avrov, i Cor. viiL 6 (Chrys. etc). The latter designates Christ as the mediate instrument, the former goes further, and seems to express that the conditioning cause of the act of creation resided in Him. The Eternal Word stood in the same relation to the created Universe as the Incarnate Christ to the Church. The latter relation is constantly expressed by fr, which is also used by classical writers to express that the cause of a relation exists in some person. Comp. ver. 17, avr$ aw<rrrjKvt and for the preposition, Acts xviL 28, iv avnp {S/mv koX Kivov/xtOa koi io-fiev. The originating cause i$ 08 to xdVra is God the Father, Rom. xL 36 ; 1 Cor. viiL 6. The Schoolmen, following, indeed, Origen and Athanasius, interpreted the words of the causa cxemplaris^ viz. that the idea omnium rerum was in Christ. So that He was, as it were, the Archetypal Universe, the summary of finite being as it existed in the Eternal Mind This view has been adopted by Neander, Schleiermacher, Olshausen, and others. Olshausen says "The Son of God is the intelligible
expression,
KTurts, for
world, the #coo>u>* voi/tos, that is, things in their Idea. In the creation they come forth from Him to an independent existence." This would correspond to Philo's view of the Logos (which to tSc&v him, however, was a philosophical abstraction), ov&k 6 Ik Kocrfiof aXXov &v fyoi toitov rj rov Btlov \6yov rov ravra 810*007x9auvra. (De Mundi Op. iv. 4, torn. i. p. 4), and again : oa-a Ay ivuvfitffiara rein;, oonrcp iv olictp r<p Aoy<p &ia$i<: (De Migr, Abr. L torn. i. p. 437). Lightfoot regards the apostle's teaching as "an enlargement of this conception, inasmuch as the Logos is no longer a philosophical abstraction, but a Divine Person," and he quotes, seemingly with assent, the words of Hippolytus: fyci tavry ras iv tw varpl irpoworf$ia as tScac SOev iccAcvoitos irarpos yfaaOai Ko\rftov to Kara tv Aoyo? dVcrcAciro dpi<nctay &$ (Haer.
tw
*" 33)-
But, however attractive this interpretation may be, it is inconwhich expresses the historical act of creation, not a preceding iv avnp. Nor has it any support elsewhere in the N.T. iKTurik), " were created." Schleiermacher (Studien u. Kritiken% 1832} alleges that the verb is never used in Hellenistic Greek of creation proper, and therefore understands it here of constitution and arrangement ; and he interprets the statement as referring to the foundation of the Church. The word is often so used in classical
sistent with iKTiotirj,
cW
1.16]
writers.
But
in the
21
of*
N.T.
kt%<o,
mW, xrurfm
See
are always used
original creation or production.
for the verb
Rom. L 25; 1 Cor. xi. 9; 1 Tim. iv. 3; Apoc. iv. use in Eph. ii 10, 15, iv. 24 is not an exception, the k*wo% <LvOpw iros being regarded as a new creation. The tenses of iin-Mhi, Itcrtarai are to be noted ; the former is suitable to the historical fact of creation, the latter to the permanent relations of the creation to the Creator ; comp. crwmpccv,
ver. 17.
Mark xiiL 19 y n, x. 6. Its
things collectively, presently specified as to place teal hrl ts yrjs, an expression designating all created things, the heaven and earth themselves not excluded, as Wetstein would have it, who infers that not the physical creation is meant, but "habitatores qui reconM ciuantur. The compendious expression is adopted because the apostle has chiefly in view the heavenly beings; but ra shows that the statement is meant to be universal
all
tA v&rra,
nature,
and
fr
roU obpavois
...
ram
aL
The rd of Text Rec before fr ro*t ofy. is omitted by dfgVulg. Inserted by K* A D*K Land most mss. rd before Mrfyyfrls omitted by B, d f g Vulg. # Inserted by K ACDGKLP.
It will
first
K*BD*GP 17,
be observed that the authority for omission is much greater in the clause than in the second, although the one cannot be inserted or omitted without the other. It is possible, therefore, that rd was accidentally omitted in the first clause after rdrro, and then omitted from the second for the sake of uniformity. On the other hand, it may have been inserted in both places from the parallels in ver. 20 and in Eph. i. 10.
t& Apa-rA xal t& dopaTa, a Platonic division; Owfiv

ftovXti, l<fnft Svo tl&rj
o$v, ct
iw
it is
&vr<av,
to
pJtv
oparov, to SI dctScs.
The
latter
term here
refers to the spirit world, as the following context
indicates.
Chrys. Theoph. Lightfoot, etc, suppose
to be included, but
more probable
that
i,
man
human souls as a whole is
included
ir&cnrp
among
elxt Opdvoi, ict.X.
the 6par<. In the parallel, Eph.
21,
we have fanp&v*
dpxfc Kai tfowtas teal Swa/iccof kclL KvpLorrjros. It will be noted that both the names and the order are different Moreover, the addition in Eph., *<u van-os oW/taro? <5vo/xofo/*cvov, shows that St Paul is only adopting current terms, not communicating any
The
incidental revelation about objective facts (see on Eph. i. 21). gist of the passage is to make light of the speculations about
the orders of angels, but to insist on the supremacy of Christ " His language here shows the same spirit of impatience with It is said, this elaborate angelology as in ii. 18," Lightfoot indeed, that St Paul "is glorifying the Son of God by a view of His relation to created bong; and assuredly this would not be best done by alluding to phases of created bong which might all
2l6
[L 16
the while be figments of the imagination " (Moule). But it is purpose that the existence of angelic beings in If St. Paul accepts as true the fundageneral should be a reality. mental assumption of the heretical angelology, it seems to follow that revelations about heavenly existences may be found elsewhere than in the Scriptures, for this system of the angelic hierarchy could not be derived either from the O.T. or from reason. 0p6vtx are not mentioned elsewhere in the N.T., but in Test XII Patr. (Levi 3) they are placed in the highest (seventh) heaven. Probably the name was meant as a designation of spirits who occupied thrones surrounding the throne of God. Comp. Rev. Clement of Alex, seems to regard them as so called because iv. 4. supporting, or forming the throne of God (Proph. Eel. 57), as the cherubim are represented in Ezek. ix. 3, x. 1, xL 22 ; Ps. lxxx. 2, For a summary of Jewish and Christian speculations as zcix. 1. to the angelic hierarchy, Lightfoot's note may be consulted. t4 irdiru k.t.X. This is properly separated from the foregoing by a colon after cjovo-tau The sentence emphatically restates in a form applied to the present what had already been said of the Thus what was described in relation of Christ to the creation. 16 as a historical act by ItcTurOrj, is here repeated, regarded as a avrc2 oiWonpiccv expresses completed and continuing fact; so what for the present existence of things is the logical consequence of their origin iv avra>; and, lastly, *at avros iarw vpo irdviw c2s avrov introduces a new idea. repeats wyxurdrojcos irdoif: fcriVccos. The conditions of existence of the created universe els aftroV. are so ordered that without Christ it cannot attain its perfection. This efc avro'v is nearly equivalent to SY ov in Heb. ii. 10. He is Alpha and Omega, the &pxq u WXo (Apoc. xxiL 13). This cfe avrov hcnarai is the antecedent condition of the subjection of all things to Christ, z Cor. xv. 24, 28. There is no inconsistency, then (as Holtzmann and others maintain), between this passage and 1 Cor. viiL 6 (where the subject of cfe avr6V is not ra inura, but wlckV or Rom. xL 36, where it is said of God, c avrov *al SV avrov *al cfe avrov to irdvTQu Had i( avrov been used, there would have been an inconsistency ; but as the passage stands, the subordination to the Father is fully indicated by the form of expression, 6V avrov icai cfc avrov Irriorat, implying that it was by the Father that He was appointed the t&os. This double use of ck avrov to express the immediate end and the final end, is parallel to the double use of &' avrov with reference to Christ in 1 Cor. viiL 6, and to God in
sufficient for the
Rom. xL 36. The thought

Xpurry,
is
in
Eph. L
IO, &vaKc<f>a\aim<Ta<TO<u
ra iravra cv
very similar to the present ; but, of course, we cannot quote Eph. in a question touching the genuineness of the present
Epistle.
X. 17,
18]
217
ovVos is emphatic, as always 17. xol afro? i<rnv po Trdvrwv. nom. " He himself," in contrast, namely, to the created irpo rforiw, like irpa>rdVo#co^ is of priority in time not in things,
in the
rank (which would be
M, vdvrw,
Mp
iraVra,
or the
like).
In
all,"
Jas. v. 12; r Pet iv. 8, irpi irowav is adverbial, " especially," and if so taken here, we should render "
exists."
"above
He especially
repeat with emphasis the assertion of pre$v might have been used, but lartv is more suitable to existence. express immutability of existence. As we might say, " His existence is before all things " ; compare John viii. 58, vplv 'Afipaap ytveo~6\u, lyo lfiu Lightfoot accentuates the verb afoot hmv ; but as the predicate is vpb wavrwv, larCv appears to be only the copula. The Latin takes ir&vrmv as masculine, "ante omnes," i.e. thronos, etc; but the following ra vdvra is decisive against this. " Consist," " maintain their coherence." " Corpus ovv4<m\K. unum, integrum, perfectum, secum consentiens esse et permanere" Ik rev 0tov ra a-aWa, jccu Sia cov t)/uv (Reiske, Index Demosth.). <tw&jtt}kv (AristOt De Mundoy vL 471) : (wturdvai to> tov ovpavov tqiuovpyy avrov re koI ra cV avrw (Plato, Rep. 530 A). Compare also Philo, b ivaifUK yicos, i( iavrov StaAvro? &v teal vckoos, crwicrrrjK kclI (anrvpetrai irpovota ftcov (Quis Rer. Div. haeres. p. 489). The Logos is called by Philo the 8*07*09 of the universe. 18-20. Transition to Christs relation to the Church, dwo rip OtoXoyw cfe r^v oiKovofjuav, TheodoreL Here also He is firsts the firstborn from the dead, and the Head of the Church, all the fulness of God dwelling in Him. So that even the angelic powers are included in the work of reconciliation which has been wrought through Him. 18. xal a6r4$, and He and none other, "ipse in quo omnia consistunt est caput."
xcâXf) too atifiaTos, rrjs iKKXtjaia*. rrfc hcKXtja-uK in apposition ; compare ver. 24, o iariv r} cKxAipria, and Eph. L 23, rg cickX. ijTts ccrrt to o-fyia avrov. ow/Aaros is added in order to
4j
The words
with
<r<tffiaro9
define
Ktc\ri<rias.
meaning of the figure, iceôXi? rrjs shows that the writer is not using kcôAtJ vaguely, but with the definite figure of the relation of head to body in his
precisely the
It
more
thoughts.
In classical Greek y* would fe foTiK dp)rf = "in that He is." probably be added &pxn has special but not exclusive reference to the following words, which express the aspect in which apxn is here viewed. irpunoroKos implies that other vcxpot follow ; aprf, that He it was who made possible that others should follow. He was the Principle and the first example, apxn, ô-iV, ion r^s dveurraorccos, wpo iravrcoy avaoras, Theoph. Thus He was the avapxn* * Cor. xv. 20, 23 ; and the dpxnyo* *?* f^fa Acts iii. 14. His resurrection is His title to the headship of the Church cf Rom. L 4.
:
21

Ik twv kckp&k.
[L 19
wy>.
Not "amongst," which would be
nwv
vcicp.
as in Rev. i. 5, but "from among." That others were raised before Him is not regarded as an objection to this. Theophyci yap #cal aAAoi irpo tovtov avcorqcrav, dXXo. 7raA.1v lact observes SuriOavov' avros Se rrpr TcAciav dvacrracriv dvicrrq.
:
Y^rat. "That He may become," not " be," as Vulg. As used to express what He is, so yanrjrai of what as a consequence He is to become, viz. cv iraW, ict.A. " Himself in all things pre-eminent." ircuriv is not masculine, "inter omnes," as Beza and others take it, but neuter, as the following ra irdvra makes certain. irpo>rcvetv does not occur elsewhere in the N.T., but is found in classical writers and in the Sept Thus in a connexion similar to the present, Plutarch {Mor. p. 9), <nrcv8ovrcs ro&9 inu8a? eV waxri rdyiov irparrciW. Demosthenes also has TrparrVLv cv aVacri, but with aVao-i, masc (p. 141 6). Chrysostom's explanation here is mvra\ov irpSrrW aVo> nyxaros, cv tq c*#cA.?prta irpajros, cv tj} avacrrcurci irpwros. This wpwrciW is the final result of the state to which the irpwrvroKov dvai c/c twv vKpQv was the introduction, but is not involved in the word irpuroroxo? itself. ID. 3ti. The correspondence with 5 in ver. 16, following cotiv of ver. 15, shows that this assigns a reason, not for ?va yewp-ai, but for 5s cotiv, ver. 18. The indwelling of the Godhead explains the headship of the Church as well as that of the Universe. c684ki)?ck. The subject may be either 6 0c<fc or irov to The former view is adopted by most comm., including irXypwfm. Meyer, Alford, Lightfoot, De Wette, Winer. In favour of it, the ellipsis of 6 0co? in Jas. i. 12, iv. 6, is quoted, and it is remarked that the omission here is the more easy, because " cv'ooicuz, cvookc?v, etc. (like Otkyfia), are used absolutely of God's good purpose, e$. LukeiL 14; Phil. ii. 13." But the verb cvSokciv is used by St Paul even more frequently of men than of God (seven times to It cannot, therefore, be said that it was in any sense a three). technical term for the Divine counsel, so as to render the express mention of 6 eo? as the subject unnecessary; nor is there any instance of its being used absolutely in this sense ; see 1 Cor. L Indeed, 21 ; Gal. i. 15, where 6 0co? is expressed with the verb. except in Luke ii. 14, even the substantive cvSouui, when it refers to God, is always defined either by a genitive (Eph. i. 5, 9) or by 6 0o? being the subject of the sentence, as in Phil. ii. 13, where the article with an abstract noun after a preposition " necessarily brings in a reflexive sense, to be referred to the subject of the
Tva
ccrri is
:
&
sentence," Alford. Here there is nothing in the context from which 6 0cos can be supplied, and clearness, especially in such an important passage, would require it to be expressed Further, although an example is cited from 2 Mace. xiv. 35 in
L 19]
infinitive after vSoklv is different
(<rv9
219
from the
which the subject of the
rip ays *arao-tftyiwcciK tv rjfuv ytviaOat), yet in every instance in the N.T. (six) in which cWokciv is followed by an infinitive, the subject of both is the same. The assumed change of subject to the two infinitives KaTouc. and diroicar. is also harsh. Lastly, the words seem to be an echo of Ps. lxviiL 17, 6 os cvSdftiprc Karouccu' iv avrcp, while in iL 9 we have a close parallel in Sri iv avr<g icarourci vav to vX^pwfia rip
Kv/mc, cu&wqo-as
OiAttjto*.
subject of the finite verb
vow
For these reasons it seems best to take irav to wA. as the So Ewald, Ellicott, Scholefield, Soden, RV. marg. A third interpretation, which has little to recommend it, is that of Tertullian {adv. Marc. v. 19), according to which the subject of vhoKTjav is 6 Xpurros; and this is adopted by Conybeare and Hofmann. cfe airrov then would be "to Himself. 99 But it was not to Christ but to the Father that all things were reconciled by Him; compare 2 Cor. v. 19. As Lightfoot observes, the
subject
9' interpretation " confuses the theology of the passage hopelessly.
the aorist, "hath been pleased to dwell 99 For as represents the sense better than " was pleased to dwell. the good pleasure must accompany the. dwelling, instead of being a transient act, antecedent to it, the latter expression would be 99 equivalent to " dwelt, and so would only refer to past time. If this is the subject of cv& it, of course, rb irX^jpupo. ttok means " all the fulness of the Godhead, 19 tt/* OtonjTo^ as in iL 9, "omnes divitiae divinae naturae" (Fritz.), irav to irk. being But even if 6 0<d? is taken as the subject, it is most personified. natural to interpret this expression by that in iL 9, where Karoucct It is, indeed, objected by Meyer and Eadie that the is also used. 99 Divine essence dwelt in Christ " necessarily " (" nothwendig, "unchangeably 99 (Eadie), not by the Father's good Meyer) and pleasure and purpose. Hence they understand with Beza, " cumulatissima omnium divinarum rerum copia ... ex qua in Christo tanquam inexhausto fonte, omnes gratiae in nos . . . deriventur. 99 Alford, while adopting the interpretation, rightly sets aside the objection of Meyer and Eadie to the former view, saying that " all that is His own right is His Father's pleasure, and is ever referred to that pleasure by Himself." Severianus and Theodoret interpret irXrjpnyfia of the Church, following Eph. i. 23. The latter says : irkrjp. ttjv IkjcAôw iv rjj wpof 'E^co-fcov? ^xaAccrcv, a>s tCjv OtCtov \apurfJLOTiav irtirXrjpidfianrjv. ravrrjv <ftt) cu8o#ri/<rai toy cop iv t<2 X/hot<3 KaroiKiprai, tovtc'otiv Similarly Schleiermacher, avrcp &w7}4>6ai ; and so many modems.
Although the tense
is
9*
who, referring to
explains the
irXrjpiapa tS>v
iOv>v in
Rom.
xi.
12,
25,
26,
word here of the fulness of the Gentiles and the whole of Israel, whose indwelling in Christ is the permanent state
220
[L 80
which is necessarily preceded by the complete reconciliation of which the peacemaking was the condition. But there is nothing
to support this either in the absolute use of wA. or in the context It is clear that the Karouajaai is stated as the antecedent, here.
not the consequent of d^roicar., "haec inhabitatio est fundamentum

reconciliationis,"
BengeL
Other interpretations may be found in
De Wette and
naTOiici)<rcu
Meyer.
implies permanent, or rather "settled" residence,
Cf.
not a mere mpoucCa.
Gen. xxxvi. 44
(xxxvii. 1), kclt<$kl Sc
Taxo>/? lv rjj yjj ov irapMciprcy 6 irarrjp avrov cV yfi Xavadv.
That
the word of itself does not always imply " permanent residence," see Acts vii. 4, Kan^tcrja-ev cV XappdV KaxtWcv /irrwictcrcv avrov cfc rrjv yrjv ravrqv: see on Lk. xL 26. The aorist seems to be usually employed in the sense, "take up one's abode in." Compare Matt This, however, cannot ii. 23, iv. 13 ; Acts vii. 2, 4 ; Eph. iii. 17. be insisted on here, where the infinitive is dependent on an aorist It is probable, as Lightfoot remarks, that the false teachers maintained only a partial and transient connexion of the irAijpo>/ia with the Lord. SO. diroKOTaXXdfau The diro may be intensive, "prorsus reconciliare," or, as in diroKafliordVat, may mean "again" (so Alford, Ell., lightfoot, Soden). "Conciliari extraneo possent, recondliari vero non alii quam suo," TertulL adv. Marc. v. 19. But icaTttAAiWciK is the word always used by St Paul in Rom. and Cor. of reconciliation to God ; and of a wife to her husband, See on Eph. ii. 16. 1 Cor. viL 11. tA w&kto, defined as it is presently after by ctrc to. im rfc yfc, k.t.X., cannot be limited to the Church (as Beza), nor to men (especially the heathen, Olshausen), nor yet to intelligent beings " How far this restoration of universal nature may be generally. subjective, as involved in the changed perceptions of man thus brought into harmony with God, and how far it may have an objective and independent existence, it were vain to speculate," Compare dbroKaTaarao-cu* wavriav, Acts iii. 21 ; also Lightfoot.
Rom.
viii.
21.
cU aMv. If our interpretation of this were to be determined solely by considerations of language, we should have no hesitation in referring aMv to the same antecedent as cV avr<5, 84* avrov, and avrov after crravpov, that is Christ, and that, whatever subject we
adopt for cv&Kiprc, but especially
subject.
On
this
if wav to v\. is not taken as the interpretation the d7ro#caraAAa&H rd irdvra cfe
If avroV would refer back to rd irdVra cfc avrov . . . Zktlotoi. cavr<p was necessary in 2 Cor. v. 19, was it not more necessary here in order to avoid ambiguity ? It is, however, a serious objection to this view that we nowhere read of reconciliation to Christ but only through Him to God.
20]
is,
221
This objection
first,
that this is the only place in

Xoyio/icvos aureus
iravTa is
viz.
firj
indeed, somewhat weakened by the consideration, which the reconciliation of to mentioned. In 2 Cor. v. 19 the words which follow avr<p,
ra irapairrw/iara avrw,
K.T.X.,
show
that
has not the wide significance of ra vuvra here. Secondly, that already in ver. 1 7 there is predicated of Christ what elsewhere is predicated of God, viz. &Y avrov #cat els avrov ra vavra (Rom. xL 35). Thirdly, here only is cfc used instead of the dative after (dwo) KaraAXaVo-ccv. The difference is slight, and only in the point of view; but the change would be accounted for by the reference
Koa-fjioi
to ver. 17. It deserves notice that
some expositors who reject this view use language which at least approximates to the idea of reconciliation Thus Alford, speaking of the "sinless creation, " says it to Christ " is lifted into nearer participation and higher glorification of Him, and is thus reconciled^ though not in the strictest yet in a very intelligible and allowable sense." If wav rh irXrjpwfia is the subject, and avrdV be viewed as rov coV, this antecedent would be supplied from vav to vk. On the other hand, if in which, on this view, it is involved. the subject of cv&mci/o-c is 6 cos understood, this, of course, is the antecedent But the reference of avrov (reflexive) to an unexpressed subject is harsh, notwithstanding Jas. L 12. clf)roiroi^<ms belongs to the subject of the verb, the masc. being adopted Kara, o~vv<nv9 as in ii. 19. This was inevitable, since the personal character of 6 tlpTjvoiroirja-as could not be lost
sight of.
As it is Christ who is specified in Eph. iL 15 as vouav tiprjvrjv, Chrysostom, Theodoret, Oecum. and many moderns, although making 6 0cos the subject of cvookô-c, have so understood tlprjvon irocipras here " by the common participial anacoluthon ; but this is a very harsh separation of the participial clause from the finite verb, and introduces confusion amongst the pronouns. Si' afrrou, repeated for the sake of emphasis, "by Him, I say." This repetition, especially in so pointed a connexion with Ta hr\ rip ytfi and ra Iv rot? ovpavols, still further emphasises the fact that angelic mediators have no share in the work of reconciliation, nay, that these heavenly beings themselves are included amongst those
to
whom
the benefit of Christ's work extends.
u P and most mat., Syr. (both) 8t ctfroD is read by K Boh., Chrys. Theodoret It is omitted by BD*GL, Old Lat Vulg. Ann. Eth., TheophyL Ambrosiaster, al There would be a tendency to omit them as superfluous.
The second
AC
diversity
tA iirl Ttjs yi)$, ctrc tA Iv tois oupaôis. There is much of opinion as to the interpretation of this passage; "torquet interpretes," says Davenant, "et vicissim ab illis torcTtc
222
quetur."
things ?

First,
[L
flO
are
we
to understand to irdvra as limited to
intelligent creatures, or as including also
unreasoning and
lifeless
Alford, Meyer,
and many others adopt the
latter view,
which, indeed, Alford says
is "clearly" the apostle's meaning. compared, where it is said that the ftrto-ts has been made subject to fiaravom^. But it is not easy to see how the reversal of this paTaionp or the delivery from the SovActa -rijs 4>Bopaq can be called "reconciliation to God." Reconciliation implies enmity, and this cannot be predicated of unreasoning and lifeless things. The neuter to. iravra does not bind us to this
Rom.
viii.
19-22
is
it is simply the most concise and striking expression of universality. But, further, what is meant by the reconciliation of heavenly beings ? Many commentators suppose the meaning to be that even good angels have need to be in some sense "reconciled." Calvin observes: "duabus de causis Angelos
interpretation,
quoque oportuit cum Deo pacincari: nam quum creaturae sint, extra lapsus periculum non erant, nisi Christi gratia fuissent confirmati . . . Deinde in hac ipsa obedientia quam praestant Deo, non est tarn exquisita perfectio ut Deo omni exparte et citra veniam satisfaciat. Atque hue procul dubio spectat sententia ista ex libro Job (iv. 18). 'In Angelis suis reperiet iniquitatem ' nam si de diabolo exponitur, quid magnam ? pronuntiat autem illic Spiritus Summam puritatem sordere, si ad Dei iustitiam exigatur." Similarly De Wette, Bleek, Huther, Alford, Moule. The last named adopts Alford's statement: "No reconciliation must be thought of which shall resemble ours in its process, for Christ took not upon Him the seed of angels, nor paid any propitiatory penalty in the root of their nature. . . . But forasmuch as He is their Head as well as ours ... it cannot be but that the great event in which He was glorified through suffering should also bring them nearer to God. . . . That such increase [of blessedness] might be described as a reconciliation is manifest we know from Job xv. 15 that 'the heavens are not clean in His sight'; and ib, iv. 18, ' His angels He charged [charges] with folly.' " The general truth may be admitted without accepting Eliphaz the Temanite as a final authority. But imperfection is not enmity, and the difficulty is in the application of the term "reconciled" in the sense of "lifted Daveinto nearer participation and higher glorification " of God.
:
nant, followed by Alexander, says that Christ has reconciled angels "analogically, by taking away from them the possibility of
falling."
It is hardly necessary to dwell on the opinion of Origen, that the devil and his angels are referred to ; or on that of Beza, van Til, al.j that tol iv toi? ovpavoU are the souls of those who died in the Lord before the coming of Christ, and who are supposed to have been admitted into heaven by virtue of His work w) ich was
X.
20]
223
Neither opinion has any support in Scripture. (Bengel to come. notes that irdvra " continet etiam defunctos," but does not suppose them referred to as in heaven.) better view is that of Harless (adopted also by Reuss, Oltramare, ai.\ according to which the reconciliation proper applies only to to. cVl t^s y$s, but the apostle adds ra tv roU ovp., " not as if there were in heaven any real need of redemption, nor as if heaven were only added as a rhetorical figure, but because the Lord and Creator of the whole body, whose members are heaven and earth, in restoring one member has restored the whole body ; and herein consists the greatest significance of the reconciliation, that it is not only the restoration of the earthly life, but the restoration of the harmony of the universe" (Harless, Eph* p. 53). Ritschl thinks that St. Paul refers to the angels concerned in the giving of the law, to whom he believes the apostle here and elsewhere attributes a certain lack of harmony with the Divine plan of redemption (Jahrb. f. Deutsche TTteol. 1863, p. 522 f.).
Compare
ii.
15.
is that the reference is to angels as a category, not as individuals. The original normal relation between God and these higher spirits no longer subsists so long as the hostile realm of demons still exists; whose power has indeed been broken by the death of the Lord, but which shall be fully destroyed
Meyer's solution
at the Parousia.
argues at considerable length that "heaven and was a Hebrew expression for " this lower earth." Chrysostom takes the accusatives to depend on tlpTjvoiroirjo-as. This is clear from his question, ra 8c cV rois ovpavoU *$ cfywjvov-onprc; His reply is that the angels had been made hostile to men, seeing their Lord insulted (or as Theodoret more generally God, then, not says, on account of the wickedness of the many). only made things on earth to be at peace, but brought man to the This was profound peace. angels, him who was their enemy. Why then, says the apostle, have ye confidence in the angels? So far are they from bringing you near, that had not God Himself reconciled you to them, ye would not have been at peace. So
earth
n
Hammond
" pacificantur coelestia cum terrestribus, Erasmus adopts the same con" pacificatis et iis quae struction, amending the Latin version thus in terra sunt, et quae in coelis." Bengel's interpretation is similar, and he appears to adopt the same construction, for he compares Luke xix. 38, tlprjvrj tV ovpavta: and comparing this again with Luke ii. 14, eVl yfj* tlpyvv* ne remarks that what those in heaven call peace on earth, those on earth call peace in heaven. This construction does not seem to be open to any grammatical objection. Only two instances of Îpyjvoiroulv are cited in the Lexicons,
Augustine (Eruhir. 62)
et terrestria
cum
coelestibus."
224
[I.
SI
one from the Sept, Pro v. x. 10, where it is intransitive; the other from Hermes, ap. Stob. EcL Phys. p. 984, where the middle is used transitively, rorc kclI aMj tov IBiov hpopov tip-qvovoulTax* As to the form of the compound, Aristotle uses ooWotcw with an
Rhet L 1. 2, Mjkov V* cfy &y avra koX ooWoicik. So takes an accus., e.g. ov/ufopas, Lys. p. 165, 26; cf. Thua vi 38, al. It is singular that this construction which yields an excellent sense has been entirely overlooked, and the interpretation of Chrys., etc, met with the objection that irojcara>Aa<u cItc ra . . tire rd cannot mean to reconcile these two . . with one another. May it not be that the difficulty arises from attempting to turn what is practically a hypothetical statement into a categorical assertion ? St Paul has in his mind throughout this part of the Epistle the teaching of the false teachers at Colossae, who knew, forsooth, all about the celestial hierarchy, with its various orders, some of which were doubtless regarded as not entirely in harmony with the Divine will The apostle no more adopts their view here than he adopts their hierarchical system. The point on which he insists is that all must be brought into harmony, and that this is effected through Christ Are we, however, justified in assuming that all Ti lv tois ovpavoU (which is not necessarily equivalent to "in heaven") are holy angels, or were so conceived by St Paul? If there are " other worlds than ours," would not their inhabitants be reckoned rots ovparois? as 81-28. The Colossians are reminded that this reconciliation applies to them also, and that the object in view is that they may be But this depends on their holdingfast blameless in the sight of God. by the truth which they have been taught*
accusative,
\oyoTroiiv
&
81.
verse.
We must first note the difference of reading in the last word of the droKaraWdyrfrt is read by B, 17 (drojcar^XXdnp-ai) ; droKaraXXa-
ytfrra, by D*G, the Latin authorities have droan)XXaer.
dgm
Goth., Iren. (transl.)
a/.;
but
all
other
Lachm., Meyer, Lightfoot, Weiss adopt droKaTyWdyjp-e, which is given a place in the margin by Treg. WH. and Rev. It is argued that drajraraAXaylrrcf is an emendation, for grammatical reasons, of &TOK*TTJ\\dyTiTc (though a careless one, for it should be accus. ). These two
sets of authorities, then,
may be taken together as attesting the passive. As between droKaTrfWdyrp-t and dro*ar^XXae', there is in favour of the former the consideration that, if the latter had been the original reading, the construction would be plain, and no reason would exist for altering it. Lightfoot
regards this reading of B as perhaps the highest testimony of all to the great value of that MS. With the reading dro*an$XXaer there is a slight anacoluthon, there being no direct protasis. Examples, however, are not infrequent of a clause with following a participle which indirectly supplies the protasis. The anacoluthon might indeed be avoided by making bfias depend on dro*ara\Xdac but this would be more awkward ; and, besides, ver. 21 obviously begins a new paragraph, resuming the thought from which the apostle had digressed in 15*
88]
225
With the reading droKarnWdyrp-e it is possible to regard the clause rvrl teBardrov as parenthetical. " And you who once were estranged (but now ye have been reconciled) to present you, I say," the second fytat repeating the first ; and so Lachmann, Lightfoot, Moule. But, considering the importance of the clause, it is perhaps better (with Meyer) to understand the construction as an anacoluthon, the apostle having begun the sentence with the active in his mind, and, in a manner not unusual with him, passing to a more independent form of statement This, too, seems much more in St Paul's manner than the parenthesis supposed by I*chmann.
ical
6paf,
"and you
also," irorc
cWas
dirnXXoTpuipcVovtj
"who
were once in a
forcibly the settledness of the alienation.
more For dvoXXorpufo see on Eph. it 1 2. Here the remote object must be God, as of its opposite AiroKaraXXa(r<TLvi and the word implies that they belonged to another
state of
estrangement"
oVrac expresses
and
(dAAorpcos) (they were, in fact, subject to the i(mxrCa tov ovccrovs), that this was the consequence of movement away from Him n (diro-). Alford understands the verb here objectively, " banished ;
but it seems more congruous to the whole context (drojcaroA., kxPpvfc) to understand it subjectively, "estranged (in mind)." i\0pov? is taken passively by Meyer, IxOpodt rg Siaroio* " invisos Deo." But such a meaning is not justified either by the
context here or by the use of the word elsewhere ; cf. Rom. vuL 7, tA <f>p6vY)fui tif9 o-apKo? iyBpa cfc 0cdV. Even in Rom. v. 10, c! yap tyQpoi oVrcs KaT7}XXdyrjfAv tw 0c<j>, K.r.X., it is best understood actively ; there, as here, the sinner is spoken of as reconciled to God, not God to the sinner. Indeed, nowhere in the N.T. is the latter expression used. The fact that it occurs in Clement, in the Const. Apost, and in the Apocrypha (Meyer), only makes its absence from the N.T. the more noticeable. As Lightfoot observes, "it is the mind of man, not the mind of God, which must undergo a change, that a reunion may be effected." It was not because God hated the world, but because He loved it, that He sent His Son. In Rom. xL 28, where the Jews are said to be lyBpot in a passive sense, this is not absolute, but Kara to cfayy&cov, and they are at the same time aya-mrp-oL Here, in particular, the active sense is required by the following rg oWotip, which Meyer indeed interprets as a "causal dative" (as if it were = 8ti rrjv oWouxv). But in tyOpfc r0 oWoi'p the two notions must have the same subject (vfJav not being added). Besides, if so intended, havota would surely be qualified by 7rovrfp, or the like. rfi Scavoup, then, is the dative of the part affected, as in io-KorufUvot rj} Stavoia, Eph. iv. 18
KaBapol rg KapSia, Matt V. 8. 4v Totf ipyois rots iroKi)poi$, the practical sphere in which the preceding characteristics exhibited themselves. striking contrast to the description of the Christian walk in ver. 10. 88. wrt "now," i.e. in the present order of things, not "at the present moment" The aorist marks that the state of things
15
226
THE EPISTLE TO THE COLOSSIAKS
[Z.
S3
It is correctly rendered by the English followed a given event perfect So ver. 26 ; also Eph. iL 13, iiL 5 ; Rom. v. 11, viL 6,
xL 30^ 31, xvL 26; 2 Tim. L 10; 1 Pet L 10, iL io> 25. We have die aorist similarly used in Plato, Symp. 193 A, vpb tov, tkrmp
Xtyu, ty fjfJW
in Isaeus,
vwl
&k Sia rrpf
d&uuav SupKurBtipsv
.
.
.
ford
rov 0cov,
. .
and
Clean, her. 20, totc phr d*wtoTtjXXdYT)T or d*wtoTiJXXa|cK.

iv
De
vwl
&k
ifiovXrjOrf,
For reading and construc-
tion, see above.
aaptA* afrrou, iv pointing to the medium of the addition of 1% <rap*o? avrov, "consisting in 19 His flesh, has been variously accounted for. Beza, Huther, Barry, o/. y suppose the expression directed against Docetism ; but there is no direct evidence of this form of error so early, nor does there appear to be any allusion to it in this Epistle. Others, as Bengel, Olshausen, Lightfoot, supposed the words added to distinguish between the physical and the spiritual ow/io, i.e. the Church. Bui Marcion, however, omitted rrjq oupjcot this would be irrelevant as inconsistent with his views, and explained iv r$ a-upon of the Church. Tertullian, referring to this, says "in eo coipore in quo mori potuit per camem mortuus est, non per ecclesiam sed proptei ecclesiam" (Adv. Marc v. 19). The most probable explanation is that the words have reference to the opinion of the false teachers* that angels who were without a a&pa dp <rap*os assisted in th* work of reconciliation (so Alford, Ellicott, Meyer, Soden). hk to* 6Wrov expresses the manner in which the recondluAkm was
t^ otfpan
-ri\i
reconciliation.
The
wrought
After toirov, aJref
is
added in
MAP a/., Boh. Ann. aL
With the reading dvoKaTTJ\Xt*v this infinitive expresses the final purpose ; comp. 2 Cor. xL 2, Jippocrdprjv Here, howfytas tvl dvSply vapOivov dyvrpr wapacrnjcrai rf Xpurnjt ever, the verb has its judicial sense ; comp. 2 Cor. iv. 14, 6 yitpa* tov Kvpiov Ttycrow Kal fjpas crw *Ii/o~ov iypu jcal *a/xiampm crvr As this vapaxTTTjovA is thus included by God Himself in His vp2v. work as the consequence of the reconciliation which He has accomplished, it follows that there is no room for anything to be contributed to this end by man himself. With the reading dwoKarq\XdyrjfT two constructions are possible. First, it may be taken as dependent on evSdKvpw, vwl Si-^Savirov being parenthetical (Lightfoot). This makes die sentence rather Or, secondly, the subject of vapaorrjow and that of involved. dvojcar. may be the same, viz. fycly, "ut sisteretis vos." Comp. Rom. vL 13, vapcurrrjo-aT* lavrov? t<3 w; 2 Tim. iL 15, OTrovSacrov arvavrov SoVrifiov mpaernjow t$ c<3. There is here no emphasis on
TOfKurrijaai
dpEs.
the reflexive sense (the words being nearly equivalent to "that ye may stand"), so that Javrovc is not required.
I.
88]
227
Lightfoot regards irapa<rn}oui here as sacrificial, paraphrasing thus " He will present you a living sacrifice, an acceptable offering to Himself," But this is reading into the words something which is not suggested, nor even favoured, by the context Though dyunx k<u dfiufiovs may seem to be borrowed from the vocabulary of sacrifice, the combination does not cany any such connotation Yj/xas ay/ovs #cat with it Comp. Eph. L 4 (cfcAcfaro 17/uis) dfitapovs Karwwnov avrov; ib. ver. 27 (in connexion with the same verb Trapaarrrjvaiy where the figure is that of a bride) ; Jude 24, orfjaai Karwwrmov rrjp Sofrp avrov d/jufifiovs. dveyicXijrou?, moreover, It is a judicial term, and thus deteris not suitable to sacrifice. mines the sense of the other two, irapaorô-ai being quite as much a judicial as a sacrificial word ; cf. Acts xxiii. 33. May we not add that the thought expressed in Lightfoofs paraphrase has no parallel in the N.T. ? For Rom. xiL 1 does not support the idea of God preAccordingly, this view senting believers to Himself as a sacrifice. The adjectives, then, are best is rejected by most commentators. understood of moral and spiritual character, the first expressing the positive aspect, the others the negative ; and Karcvunriov avrov being connected with the verb, which requires such an addition, not with the adjectives, nor with the last only. 88. el yc, " assuming that" See Eph. iii. a. tirtplKcrc, "ye abide, continue in," a figurative use of fcn/wciv, occurring several times in St Paul (only), and always with the simple dative; cf Rom. vi. 1, xL 22, 23 ; z Tim. iv. 16. (In Acts The riis not xiiL 43 the genuine reading is wpwrfuvtv.) intensive, as if bnjUviv were stronger than ftcvciv (cf. 2 Cor. ix. 9
:
cW
2
It
Tim. il 13; 1 Tim. il 15 adds the idea of locality.

tq v&rTciy
Acts xviiL 20,
ix.
43, xxviiL 12, 14).
word referring to the sure foundation (Eph. iii. 17), the latter to the firmness of the structure. iSpato* OOCUrS also in I Cor. viL 37, os 8* ZcmjKev hr rg Kop&ta avrov lopalos, and in I Cor. XV. 58, iSpaiot ytvccr0, dfieraKLvrjTOu fri) |icTOK4MM{|icroi expresses the same idea on the negative side, but defined more precisely by the following words. It seems better taken as middle than passive, especially considering the present tense, "not constantly shifting." The use of implies that this clause is conditioned by the preceding (Winer, 55. ia). airo 7% cXirCSos. As the three preceding expressions involve the same figure, Soden regards these words as connected (by zeugma) with the first two as well as with the third. tou uayycX(ovy subjective genitive, the hope that belongs to the gospel Comp. y Ikms rip *A,iprcci>9, Eph. L 18, iv. 4. 08 JjitotfoaTt, k.t.X. Three points to enforce the duty of not being moved, etc They had heard this gospel; the same had
i.e, vfjuwv, referring to L 4. Tt OcpcXittfilroi Ral iSpaioiy the former
228
[l
24
of it
been universally preached, and the apostle himself was a minister iraA.iv avrovs <f>ipti ftdprvpas, cTra rrjv oiKOVfUvrjv avwray . KCU TOVTO cfc TO d&OITlOTOV (TWTcAct. . . . fJLCya jap CLVTOV tfV TO
dta>/ia
Xotwov irairaôv y&ofUvov, kou

rrfoci,
tt/9 obcovfjWTjs
ovtos ScoWicaAov,
Chrys.
or "among every 15 (where, however, jctmtis has the article), KYjpv$ar to evayycXiov W0077 rjj ktl<TL In both places the thought is of proclamation and of reception by faith; and therefore we can hardly (with Lightfoot) bring in "all creation, animate and inanimate." The expression #n/pvx0crros is probably not to be regarded as hyperbolical, but ideal, "it 'was* done when the Saviour . bade it be done" (Moule).
iv w<rn
"in
all
creation,"
cf.
creature," Coverdale, Lightfoot;
RV. Mark xvi.
After rdira,
rjj is
N # ABCD # Gi7,
added in K D K L
P and most
It is absent
from
etc.
08 *yv6pr\v fy& riouXos SicUoros. Returning to his introduction of himself in ver. r, the apostle prepares to say some further words of introduction of himself and his calling, before entering on the main topic of the Epistle. It is not for the purpose of magnifying his office that he thus names himself, but to impress on his readers that the gospel which they had heard, and which was proclaimed in all the world, was the very gospel that he preached. For Sicucovos, K*P read xrjpvi *<u AiroorroAos. A combines both readings. 24-29. The apostles own qualification as a minister of this gospel. To him has been given the privilege of knowing and proclaiming this mystery which was hidden from former ages, namely, that of Christ dwelling in them. It is his mission to make this known, and so to admonish and teach that he may present every man This he earnestly labours to do through the power of Christ perfect.
"w is n ^t transitional (" quae cum ita sint," which would require ofo, or the like, but refers to present Now as a prisoner " with a chain upon my wrist " (Eadie). time. His active service as Sufoovo? is at present suspended, but the sufferings which it had brought upon him are a source of joy. Lightfoot understands it thus: "Now, when I contemplate the lavish wealth of God's mercy, now when I see all the glory of bearing a part in this magnificent work, my sorrow is turned into But there is no indication of such a connexion of thought joy."
24. vOv x<"P
Liicke),
in the text
It is, doubtless, a repeti5 is prefixed to r(V in D* G, Vulg. a/. ( AV. ). tion of die first syllable of dtdjcoro* , assisted by the desire to supply a connectFor examples of similar abruptness compare ing link between the sentences.
2 Cor.
vii.
Tim. L
12.
94]
Iv.
THE MISSION OF THE

Compare Phil L
is
At>OSTLE
:
229
v. 3,
18, hr tovt< xalpua
Rom.
Kavx&p*0a
iv rats $k&frcrw.
After raB^fiofftw, fiov Syr-Pesh. Arm. Eth. a/.
added
in
Text Rec with K and many
cursives,
frirJp fifM*?, to be connected with vaBy/xaaiv. His sufferings had been brought on him by his labours on behalf of the Gentiles, " propter vestrum gentium salutem," Estius, and so with a kindly personal reference he represents them as endured on behalf of the
is
Colossians, who shared in the benefit of his ministry. not required before vircp v/uav9 rots vadypacriv being
diauKairXvipw.
The
oU
article
7rao^<i).
This double compound is not found elsewhere avairkrjpovv is found six times in N.T., twice in connexion with vortprjpa, 1 Cor. xvL 17 ; Phil, ii. 30. wpoaavairXrjpovv also occurs twice with vorcpq/ia, but in a different sense, the former verb referring to a deficiency left by, the latter to one What modification is introduced felt by, the persons mentioned. in the meaning of dvcwrAijpow by the addition of vrt- is disputed. olvtl in composition with a verb does not imply "instead of another," as Photius here takes it (tovtcotiv, \Avti Sccnrorov #cai SioWkoAov 6 oovAo? fyw, K.T.A.), but " over against," which may be
in
LXX or N.T.
either in opposition, as dvriAcyu, Ayrucci/uu, or in correspondence, in turn, as avri/ACTpccD, dvTixaAca) (Luke xiv. 12), Avrikapfiavopai, etc
Here the avri- has been understood by some as referring to oWovia, the suffering now taking the place of the former active service, or as indicating that the apostle's afflictions were in It is, perhaps, response to what Christ had done for him.
sufficient to say, with Wetstein, that it indicates the correspond-
ence with the variprffuiy " fori vorcpiy/taros SUCCedit (ivairAifrxo/ia." (So Meyer, Alford, Ellicott, Eadie, Soden.) Lightfoot objects that of any meaning, for ayavXrjpow alone this practically deprives would denote as much. He adopts Winer's view, that AvravatrXrjpovy is used of one who " alterius wrriprffua de suo explet," or, as Lightfoot puts it, " that the supply comes from an opposite quarter to the deficiency." Instances are cited in which this idea (or rather that of " a different quarter ") is expressed in the context, for example, Dion Cass. xliv. 48, lv 6<rov . . . vc'$c<, rovro he rijs trapa riov a'XKutv trvrrcXc/a? a\vravaw\Tip<ti&fjm The requirements of this passage seem to be fully met by the idea of correspondence, as will appear if we translate " in order that ... as much as was wanting . . . this might be correspondingly supplied." And in the two instances in which avairXrjpow is used with wrrfpy/ia, the supply is from a different quarter from the deficiency, so that there is no more reason for including this idea in avravawk, than in
am
dpairA.
In Demosth. (De Symm.
p. 182),
tovtw
tw ovitpvpilShf hcaxmpr
230
SicXctv
[L 94
kcXcvq) vcvt fitprj Kara 8<o8c*a SvSpas, 6.yravaw\rjpvyras tov cuiropwrarov del tovs diroparrarovs, the idea IS that the poorer members should balance the rich in each ftcpo?, so as to equalise the lUpq. It is this idea of balance that is expressed by the for*. Similarly the substantive avravawkjpwn* in Diog. Laert x. 48, koX yap Revets diro ti}s rutv trwfidnov hnirokrjs vwtxfc ovpftatvtt, owe hr&rjkos aur$rjai &ta rrjv avravairXtfpuxrur, i.e. on account of
irpos
the counter-supply, i.e. the supply which " meets " the deficiency. It is not, perhaps, an over-refinement to suggest that dvravavXrfpta is more unassuming than avavkrjpio, since part of the force of the word is thrown on the idea of correspondence. tA AoTcîxaTou The plural is used because the afflictions are not regarded as a unity from which there is a definite shortcoming. Compare I Thess. iiL 10, ra vorcpi;/iara rrj<: u-iotcok vp*>v, where the singular would suggest that their faith, as faith, was defective, while the plural suggests that there were points in which it needed to be made perfect twk OXi+cuk too XpurroG. By two classes of commentators these words are understood to mean the afflictions which Christ endured. First, many Roman Catholic expositors, including Caietan, Bellarmine, and more recently Bisping, find in the passage a support for the theory that the merits of the saints constitute a treasure of the Church from which indulgences may be granted. Estius, with his usual candour, while holding the doctrine to be. Catholic and apostolic, yet judges that " ex hoc Ap. loco non videtur admodum
solide statui posse.
Non enim sermo
iste,
quo
dicit
Ap. se pati
pro ecclesia, necessario sic accipiendus est, quod pro redimendis peccatorum poenis quas fidelis debent, patiatur, quod forte nonnihil haberet arrogantiae; sed percommode sic accipitur, quomodo proxime dixerat 'gaudeo in passionibus meis pro vobis' ut nimirum utraque parte significet afflictiones et persecutiones pro salute fidelium ipsiusque ecclesiae promovendae toleratas." It has been more fully replied {e.g. by Lightfoot) that the sufferings of Christ may be regarded from two different points of view, either as satisfactoriae or atdificatoriae. In the former sense there can be no varcp^/io, Christ's sufferings and those of His servants are different in kind% and therefore incommensurable. But in this sense BXtyis would be an unsuitable word, and, in fact, it is never applied in any sense to Christ's sufferings. In the second point of view, however, that of ministerial utility, "it is a simple matter of fact that the afflictions of every saint and martyr do supplement the afflictions of Christ The Church is built up by repeated acts of self-denial in successive
individuals
It is
and successive generations " (Lightfoot). no doubt true that these " continue the work which Christ
L M]
THE MISSION OF THE APOSTLE
231
began" (compare a Cor. L 5 ; 1 Pet iv. 13). But to say this is not to say that there was any "shortcoming" in the afflictions of Christ His work, including His sufferings, was absolutely complete ; and so far as others carry it on, their work is included in His (PhiL iv. 13). To say that He left something " behind n is to slur over the meaning of fort^/io, which does not mean someNowhere in the N.T. thing left behind, but a want of sufficiency. And the Colossians were the is anything of the kind suggested. last to whom St Paul would use, without explanation, a phrase which would be so open to misconception, as tending to foster the delusion that either saints or angels could add anything to Christ's work. If affliction could do so, why not (it might be said) selfimposed suffering, asceticism, or gratuitous self-denial ? Moreover, can it be supposed that St Paul, who calls himself the least of saints, and not meet to be called an apostle, would express himLightfoot would mitigate self thus without some qualification? the apparent arrogance by the remark that "the present tense, AvravairXripu, denotes an inchoate, not a complete act" The
term "inchoate" does not seem to be justified. The present, indeed, denotes an act continuing and therefore not finished, but not incomplete as far as the present moment is concerned. Compare the instances of &vav\rip<a itself: Matt xiiL 14, &vavXrfp6vrai avTOis rj irpoîprcta, k.t.K : I Cor. xiv. 1 6, 6 6yavXrjp<av jov t&vav rov Qimtov: 2 Cor. ix. 12, ov fi6vov l<rr\ npoaayairXrjpowra t& $OTprjfiaT* twv dyiW, AAAA koX vcpurcrcvoucra, jctA. Compare also the present of wAi/pow, Gal. v. 14 ; Eph. v. 18 ; CoL iv. 1 7. third view is adopted by Chrysostom, Theophylact, Augustine, and most expositors, ancient and modern. According to this, "the afflictions of Christ" are the sufferings of His Body, the Church, so called because "He really felt them." So Augustine on Ps. lxL says of Christ, "qui passus est in capite nostra et patdtur in membris suis, id est, nobis ipsis." And Leo, quoted by Bohmer (ap. Eadie), "passio Christ! perducitur ad
finem mundi," eta This view is adopted amongst late commentators by Alford, Ellicott, De Wette, Olshausen. But the notion that Christ suffers affliction in His people is nowhere found in the N.T. Acts ix. 4, " Why persecutest thou Me ? n is not an instance. There the persecution of His saints is represented as directed against Him, but He is not represented as suffering from
idea that the glorified Christ continues to suffer, and that be complete till the last pang shall have past" (Alf.) (an idea which, as Meyer observes, would seem to imply even the thought of Christ's dying in the martyrs), is inconIt sistent with the scriptural representations of His exalted state. is true that He sympathises with the afflictions of His people ; but sympathy is not affliction, nor can the fact of this sympathy justify
it
The
" His
tribulations will not
232
[Lfl4
the use of the term "afflictions of Christ," without explanation, to mean the afflictions of His Church. This would be particularly unsuitable in the present connexion, for it would make St Paul say that he rejoiced in His sufferings because they went to increase the afflictions of Christ It remains that (with Meyer, Soden, a/.) we take the expression to signify the apostle's own afflictions ; and to this interpretation the readers are naturally led, first, by the word 0\Ii{/ls, which is never used of Christ's sufferings, but often of the apostle's ; and, secondly, by the defining words cv tq o*ap*t pov, which are best connected with row 0Afycaw\ For if the writer had intended them to be taken with the verb, he would doubtless have written imyoirkrjp<a iv rp ouptci fiov. It is said, indeed, that the words are placed here for the sake of the antithesis to rov o-aytaro? avrou. But there would be no purpose served by emphasising this antithesis here, and to do so would only distract the attention of the reader. Meyer, however, while adopting this view of OK rov Xp.t connects ivrgo-. /iov with the verb. On the other hand, Steiger, joining these words with 0A. rov Xp., connects both with the following: "the sufferings which Christ endures in my flesh for His
body,"
That St Paul should call his own sufferings in the service of Christ the afflictions of Christ in his flesh, is quite in accordance For instance, in 2 Cor. L 5 he .with other expressions of his. speaks of the sufferings of Christ overflowing to him, ircpwro-cvec to *a0ij/iara rot) Xpurrov cfc ^/ia?. In PhiL iiL 10 he speaks of knowing KOtvuwta tcw va&rjfiaTiav afoot) <rvfifJuop<t>i6fivos Ttp Oavary avTov. Again, 2 Cor. iv. 10, toktotc rijv vixpaxriv rov 'Iiprov iv rf
The form of expression, then, need not The question what St Paul means by calling
afflictions
cause any
his
difficulty.
own
troubles the
of Christ in his flesh is a different one, and may be answered by saying that Christ's afflictions are regarded as the type of all those that are endured by His followers on behalf of the Church. So Theodoret Xpurrbs rov vwlp Tifc UkX-^w icaTeScfdro Odvarov . . . *cai to aAAa oca wrc/ictfc, *<u o 0ctoc diroWoAos Compare Matt ttKravrx xnr^p a{rri/9 vrricm) ra irouciXa vaSrjfiara,
:
was probably suggested by die mention of <r<ip$. wrip is clearly not "in w the place o^ but " on behalf of" ; cf. ver. 7. I tortr 4 AwAijoto. The antithesis of a-upa and <rdp rendered necessary this explanation of the words o-uparof avrou Besides, UKkqvCa. was required by the following iycvofnpr &d*ovo& i Icrnr has not the same shade of meaning as ijr t<rnv
XX. 23, ri fi&v 7roTYfpt6v fiov irUaOt. tiip toG otf paros aorou. The use of this designation
; :
L 25,
(1
is
26]

cov
. .
233
Tim.
iiL 15, fr ourq>
rjrts
iarlv IkkXtjo-lo).
The former
equivalent to id est; the latter to "and such is." 25. 4)$ lyv6y.i\v SuUoras resumes the ov fycv. owuc. of ver. 23, carrying out now the active side of the ministry, as ver. 24 the
passive.
"According to the stewardship in the KaT& iV oUoKOfifor. house of God." On out. cf. Eph. L 10. Here -the office or function of a steward, so that he is an obcovopos cov, cf. 1 Cor. ix.
So the apostles and 1 7, ohcovofuav irorurrev/uic, and Luke xvi. 2. other ministers of the Church are called oucovd/ux, 1 Cor. iv. 1, 7 The Church is o&os tov $cov, Tit i. 7 ; see also 1 Pet iv. 10. 1 Tim. iii. 15. Chrysostom, a/., take oU. in the sense "dispensation," which is inconsistent with rrjv SoOtlo-dv pot.
els
flfuTs, cf.
ver. 24.
Connected by Scholefield and Hofmann
But compare Eph. iii. 2, rqv with the following vXrjpCxrau oucovo/uav rrjs \apuros tov 0coii ttJs So0cun/$ /jloi cis vfiat : and Rom. XV. 1 6, ti/v X&pw rrpr &o$Urdv fMH, inro rev 0cov cc? to ctvat /ic
Acirovpyov Xpurrov ci? to. IpVq. vXTjptocu, not infin. of design, but explanatory of oJic &>0. icr.A. The verb is found in a similar connexion Rom. xv. oxrrc /m f<*xpi tov *IAAv/hkov ircirXi/pcaKCFat to cvayycXiov Xptorov. 6 Xoyos rov eov is frequently used by St Paul for gospel (1 Cor. xiv. 36; 2 Cor. ii. 17, iv. 2 ; 1 Thess. iL
r^v
19,
tov the
13; sense then is "to carry out to the full the preaching of the gospel" ; " ad summa perducere Paulus ubique ad summa tendit," BengeL There is doubtless a reference to St Paul's special office as the apostle of the Gentiles, by virtue of which he gave full development to the " word of God." This is suggested by oo&Wav /xot cfc v/juk. Beza takes the phrase to mean "to fulfil the promise of God" (< 2 Chron. xxxvL 21), which does not suit the context Fritzsche understands it as meaning "to complete the teaching begun by Epaphras." See on Lk. viii. 11. 20. to |UKrrVjpioK. Lightfoot observes: "This is not the only term borrowed from the ancient mysteries, which St Paul employs to describe the teaching of the gospel," and he mentions tcA-cmw, ver. 28; ficftin/fuu, PhiL iv. 12; and (perhaps) <r<t>paytt<r0ai in Eph. L 14. There is, he says, an intentional paradox in the employment of the image by St Paul, since the Christian mysteries are not, like the heathen, confined to a narrow circle, but are freely communicated to all. But as nwmfjpiov in the singular is never used by Greek writers in connexion with the ancient mysteries, and on the other hand appears to have been an ordinary word for " secret " (see note on Eph. i. 9), there seems to be no ground for the assumption that the term is borrowed from the " mysteries." The plural is used thrice only by St Paul, viz. 1 Cor. iv. 1,
compare
also Acts
iv.
31, a/.).
The
234
xiiL 2, xiv. a

;
[X.
97
but occurs in the Gospels, Matt xiii. ; Luke viiL although the verb may have been originally borrowed from the mysteries, St Paul found it already in use in the sense in which he employs it; cf. Alciphron, iL 4, *v/fc/>rr
io.
As
to
fj.tfivrffw.Lj
For t&cios, see on ver. 28. to d*oKCKfMip|&4i'oi' fu v S4 i$avpiMh\. These are the two characteristics of a fiwrrfpiov in the N.T. Compare Rom. xvL 25, xpo fivcrnjpiov xpoVoi* ahavtovs <r<riyr)fivov, favtpuBivTas Sk yvv. run? aiuvuv, used in 1 Cor. ii. 7 of God's purpose, could not properly ahbvw, k.t.A. &vo here have been said of its concealment diro
fwrfBrfo-ofuiL
iw
of time, being opposed to vw. So dir' auovo?, Acts iiL 21, xv. An alav includes many yevca/; compare Eph. iiL 21. The 18. fact of the long concealment and recent disclosure of the mystery is not without point here ; it explains the acceptance of the errors which the apostle is combating. 27. tyarcptfOi). The anacoluthon gives more emphasis to the mention of the <f>avpwris ; cf. ver. 22. tois AyCoif adVou; *.*. Christians in general, not only the apostles and prophets of the N.T., as many both of the older and later commentators take it, in agreement with Eph. iiL 5. even adds diroordAot? (and F, of course, agrees). Cod. rj$krj<rv 6 Geo*. It was God's free ots, "quippe quibus." choice, so that the yvwpfaiv was only to those to whom He chose
is
to
make
Tt to
it
known.
tXoutos tv)s &4{t|. Compare Rom. ix. 23, &a yvupCajj rov ttXovtov rrp: 8oip avrov : and Eph. L 18, iiL 16. rl joined to a substantive of quantity signifies "how great" irXovros (in* differently masculine and neuter in St Paul) is a favourite term in these Epistles as applied to the dispensation of grace. W{a is not a mere attribute of wAovros {Erasmus), nor ot fiAxfrrfpLov (Beza), but is the principal idea; it is of the 8da tow fiwmfplov that it is said that it has shown itself in rich measure. It is the glorious manifestation of God's dealings contained in this pwrrffpiovy "magniloquus est in extollenda evangelii dignitate," crc/ivo* cfrrc *cal SyKov iirtOrfKcv diro iroAAJ/? StaS&rtas, Calvin. iiriTdartis {ijrmv lirvraxrttav, Chrys. The latter, however, understands the words of the glorious results of the gospel amongst the heathen. lv tois 20K<nK. It was amongst these especially that this irXowTos was displayed; ^cu'vcrcu br frcpois, xoAAxg Sk wXiov er tovtols r) iroXXrf rov /ivaTtjpiov &oa, Chrys, For the construction
Eph. i. 18. The antecedent may be either l<mv Xpurros lv Apt*. The former (Vulg. Chrys.) is that generally fjAxrnfpiov or irAovro?. favoured by expositors : "the mystery consists in this, that Christ is iv vfuv"; and this seems on the whole the most naturaL
cf.
L 28]
Mwmjpiov
is

the prindpal idea in the context (ver. 26, iL
235
2),
t4
irAovros ts 8ofi;s being subsidiary to it Again, the "mystery" is not something distinct from the riches of the glory of it ; those to
whom the former is revealed are made acquainted with the latter. This view also agrees with Eph. iii. 6, where the /ivomy/HOK tov XpioTcw is defined as cTwu to, IOvtj ovyKkripovopa, icr.X. The strongest objection to this view is that it seems to make 3 kmvt k.t.\. 9 a merely parenthetical definition, whereas it carries on the thread of the discourse. But this is more apparent than real ; it is the thought of the fivarqpiov that runs through the whole, and the clause is not parenthetical, but carries on the description of the
/iwmjpiov begun in ver. 26, iv vfilv. The parallelism with br to?? $vt<riv favours the interpretation "among you," rather than "in you." 4 4Xms Ttjs Wfris. This $6(rp is an echo of the former, but this does not require us to give both the same signification. Oltramare regards this, not as an apposition to 6 Xp., but as a second thought succeeding the former in a lively manner, and joining on to it, " It is Christ in the midst of you 1 the hope of glory!" 1* ti t& irXovro* is read by A B L (tJ vAovro* without riy G), while have the masc. t& 6 vA. o tortv is read by 17 47 67', probably Lat Vulg. (quod est) ; fc iarw by K C L and most, Chrys. Theodoret, alm With the latter reading, 09 is attracted to the gender of Xprr<fe. But this interferes with the sense, for whether the antecedent be irAouro? or fivarrjptov9 it is not Xpurrfc that is predicated, but
KCP
D K
ABGP
DK
X/U47TO? iv v/uv.
i.e.
"And Him we proclaim." Him, 28. tv ^jficis KaTayyAXo|Acr. not Xpurr6v only, but Xp. iv vfuv. tyiccs, emphatic, in opposition to the heretical as well as to the Judaising teachers ; " we," himself
in particular.
and Timothy
pouOctouktcs
itol
SiftrfoKorrts
"admonishing
These, as Meyer observes, correspond to the /icrwoccrc kcu irurrcvcrc of the gospel message. vovBtvla juv hri rfp wpd$<os, 8c&uricaAia 8e fee Soyfidrtav, irdrra Mpwww, thrice repeated, emphasises the universality of the gospel as taught by St Paul (iii. n), in opposition to the doctrine of an intellectual exclusiveness taught by the false teachers ; probably also it points to the fact that each man individually was an object of the apostle's care, rt Aiya?; iravra avOpwwov ; vat, îpri, tovto GnrouSafo/Acv, ci Sk /it/ yao^rac, o68cv irpos
and teaching."
17/ias,
<r<xf>ias jccu <rwcrca>9, Chrys. */., expressing the manner of the teaching. The Latin Fathers understand the words as denoting the object of the teaching ; so Moule: "in the whole field of that holy wisdom," etc. But in
iv
Theophylact mbrg oo+if, i.e. fura ircunp
236
[L 39
the N.T. the object of SiSoo-kcik is put in the accusative, not in the dative with b. There is no contradiction to 1 Cor. L 17, iL 1-16, for there is a %ov orotfHa (1 Cor. ii. 7), a divine philosophy, the source of which is indicated in ch. ii. 3 ; cf. Eph. i. 8, rifc x PtTOi vrov fc
L
iwpL(ro'v<rv 49 rjfiSs cV rrdtrj) o-oûgu
Compare
ver.
9 and
iii.
16.
Xva irapcurr^<jw|ACK, as in ver. 22, refers to presentation before tribunal, not as a sacrifice.
tAciok. This is one of the words noted by Lightfoot as " probably borrowed from the ancient mysteries, where it seems to have been applied to the fully instructed, as opposed to the novices," and in 1 Cor. ii. 6, 7 he finds the same allusion. This technical sense of reXcto? as applied to persons does not seem sufficiently made out ; in the passages cited by Lightfoot, with one exception, it is not to the persons, but to the mysteries, tcActcu, that the term is applied. The one exception is Plato, Phaedr. 249 C, rcXcovs del rcAcraf tcAov/acvo? rcXco? 6Vra>? /aoVoc yt'yrcrat, which cannot be regarded as proving the usage. But even if this be granted, there seems no sufficient reason for introducing this sense here, where what is in question is not complete initiation, or knowledge, but maturity of faith and spiritual life. In this sense the word is used by St Paul, Eph. iv. 13, /ac^/m Karavniarmfuy etc avSpa rcXciov Phil. iii. 1 5, &rot ovv rcXctot, rovro <pova>/ACv : 1 Cor. xiv. 20, tcu focal TcXciot y/ve<r0c Compare Heb. v. 14 ; Matt v. 48, xix. 21. And in the present Epistle, iv. 12, Iva crra^rc WXctoi jau TrarXrjpoif>7jfiivoi cV mum. BeXrjfjuan rov eov. Observe also here the defining addition r&ctov cv Xpurna. For the use of the term in early Christian writers to denote the baptized as opposed to the catechumens, see Lightfoot's note. 9. cts 8> viz. to present every man, eta kcu Kotiu. I not only icarayycAAa), k.t.X., but cany this to the point of toiling. Hofmann understands it as meaning, " I become
:
weary," comparing John iv. 6 ; Apoc ii. 3, where, however, the verb is perfect The sense, moreover, would be quite unsuitable here in connexion with the ya>v#c<r0<u in the power of Christ The verb is frequently used by St Paul of his toilsome labours in the Churches; e.g. 1 Cor. xv. 10; Gal. iv. 1 1 ; Phil. ii. 16; also of the labours of others; Rom. xvi. 12; 1 Cor. xvL 16; 1 Thess. v. 12. But he also uses it of the labour of the hands; 1 Cor. iv. 12 ; Eph, iv. 28. The change to the singular has its ground in the personal experience described. Compare 1 Tim. iv. 10, cfc rovro iroiruu/icy dywilrfiMKos. kou aywitoficOa. The reference here is to an inward ya>i>, as is shown by the following context ; cf. iv. 12. kotA tV cVcpyciaK afrou. Not by his own strength, but by that rbv avrov kowov teal dy<Sva 7$ Xpurnf which Christ supplies,
H.
1]
HIS ANXIETY FOR
THE CHURCHES
237
Oecum. But Chrys. Theoph. understand the avrov of God, against the immediate context cvcpyovixhnrjv, middle, as always " evcpycw, trim Fritzsche on Rom. viL 5 observes in St PauL exercere de personis, wcpycicrlat ex se (aut suam) vim exercere de rebus collocavit, GaL v. 6; Col. L 29; 1 Thess. il 13; al. ut h.l.
dyarcfci's,
:
Passivo
ip
fturrffici,
nunquam Paulus usus est" "in power"; cf. Rom. i. 8;
2 Thess.
Ln. Some
power of working miracles, which is quite inappropriate to the context, according to which the reference is to
understand
this of the
Koiriui dy<ovio/xcvos.
XL 1-7. The apostle?s care and anxiety are not limited to those Churches which he had himself founded, or to which he had personHe is ally preached^ but extended to those whom he had never seen. anxious that they should be confirmed in the faith and united in love, and, moreover, may learn to know the mystery, that is, the revealed will of God. It is no new doctrine they are to look for, but to seek to be established in the faith which they have a/ready been taught, and
to live in conformity thereto.
The general statement I say, for," etc supported by this special instance of his anxiety for the Colossian Church ; and thus although yap is not merely transitional, the transition to the personal application is
1.
r&p.
"Striving,
*oirutf
&yioyiC6fivoi is
naturally effected.
0A
$&*>
yap A|ms ciSfau.

#
So
Cor. xL
3.
More
frequently ov
com* from 1 Cor. xL 3 ; Rom. xi. 25. fjkUov, a classical word, not found in Sept or Apocrypha, and in the N.T. only here and Jas. iii. 5. dyAra 3x. As he was now a prisoner this dyuv can only be an inward one. It is not to be limited to prayer (iv. 12), but
ifia* iyvoelv.
That
is
either phrase does not necessarily
mence a new
section
clear
includes anxiety, etc.

farip fljMK.
and TtpL
The former
Here, as often, the reading varies between vwtp b is that of P; the latter of
KABCD
D*GKL.
Mai Tfr iv AaoBiiua
(sic
K ABC
D*GKLP).
probably exposed to the influence of the same heretical teaching as the Colossians. Hierapolis is probably alluded to in the words *<u Scot, k.t.K, see iv. 13. xai rw "IcpairAci is actually added in some mss. (10 31 73 118) and in Syr-Harcl.* It is clearly a gloss from iv. 13. koI fa*, K.T.X. xai here introduces the general after the particular, as in Acts iv. 6 and often. It is only the context that decides whetherthis is the case or whether a new class is introHere there would be no meaning in mentioning two duced. particular Churches which had known him personally, and then in general all who had not known him. The inference is therefore
The Laodiceans were
238
[JX
certain that he had never visited Colossae, and this agrees with the incidental references in the Epistle as well as with the narrative in
the Acts. See on avrw, ver. 2. tepoKav (Alexandrian) is better supported than the Attic iwpoKcurL The spelling with is rather better supported here than that with o. V aopici does not qualify the verb, as if "seeing in the flesh" were contrasted with "seeing in the spirit" (8cfccw<w brravOa otl iiaptav <rwxy; iv nrcv/iarc, Chrys.), but goes with wpoaarrrov /xov, giving vividness to the expression. Naturally it is implied that they had a knowledge of him, though not personal. " That their hearts may 3. lya irapaicXi)Ouair at *apSuu auTWK.
or sense "comforted, consoled" is, indeed, defended by Meyer, Ellicott, Eadie, a/. Ellicott observes: "surely those exposed to the sad trial of erroneous teachings need consolation " ; but there is no trace of this view in the Epistle, nor would such consolation be the prime object of the apostle's prayer and anxiety. No ; what made him anxious was the danger they were in of being carried away by this erroneous teaching. It was not consolation that was required, but confirmation in the right faith. For this sense of vapaKak&v cf. 1 Cor. xiv. 31 (RV. marg.). avTwv. We might have expected fy&v, but aviw was suggested by the preceding oa-ou This is decisive as to the Colossians being included in the 00-ot ; for if excluded there, they are excluded here, and the writer returns to the Colossians in ver. 4 (fyia?) in a most illogical manner : " This I say about others who do not know me, in order that no man may deceive you? ouppipcurilrres. " United, knit together," the common meaning of the verb, and that which it has elsewhere in this Epistle (ver. 19) and in Eph. iv. 16, q.v. In the Sept it always means to " instruct," It is so rendered cf. 1 Cor. ii. 16 (quotation) and Acts xix. 33. here by the Vulg. " instruct!" The nominative agrees with the logical subject of the preceding.
of,
It can hardly be doubted that this be strengthened." meaning of irapaxaXctv here, where there is no mention
is
the
allusion to, troubles or
persecutions.
The
It is read
by
K ABCD*P <x/.,
offQtmaw
is
read in
K'D'KL and most mss.,
Vulg. Syr. (both). The genitive wfifrpbut is obviously a grammatical
correction*
cV dydTfl. "In love," which is the "bond of perfection " (HL 14). koI cfe expresses the object of the orv/i/fy3. ; connected by tau, because the verb contains the idea of motion. irixr irXouTos tyjs irXtipoôpias -rijs wvivt**. "All riches of full "Full assurance" seems the assurance of die understanding." most suitable sense for vAqpoôpto, and it is also suitable in every
IL 2]
HIS ANXIETY FOR
THE CHURCHES
239
other place in the N.T. where the word occurs (1 Thess. L 5 Heb. vL xi, x 22). "Fulness" would also be suitable, except in The word does not occur in Sept or Apocr., nor in 1 Thess. L 5. On crvVco-tc cf. L 9. It has an intransitive sense, classical authors. and hence never takes a genitive of the object ; here it appears to mean the faculty of judging. He desires their judgment to be De Wette observes that irXovro* exercised with full certainty. expresses a quantitative, irAqpoôpta a qualitative, characteristic. els hriyrwTLv, k.t.X., seems best taken as parallel to the preceding cis, so that it emphatically points out the special object on which Some, however, connect this with the <rwc<ri? is to be exercised. irapaK\rj$xTiv, on the ground that hriyvwrts implies as an antecedent condition the o-v/i/h. x.r.A. For hriyvwrv^ "full knowledge," see Eph. L 17. If this reading is adopted, there are three tou 6cou Xpurrou. conceivable constructions: (a) Xpurrov in apposition to 0cov, (b) Xpurrov dependent on 0cov, (c) Xpurrov in apposition to The first (adopted by Hilary of Poitiers, also by fiwmipiov. Steiger and Bisping) is generally rejected, either on account of the context (Ell.) or because the phrase is destitute of Pauline analogy (Meyer, Moule, Lightfoot). But it appears to be inadTo point tov 0eoi), Xpurrov, taking missible on other grounds. these in apposition and thus identifying 6 0ed? and Xpurrds, is obviously impossible, as it would mean, not that cos could be predicated of Xptcrrd?, but that Xprr<fe could be predicated of 6 0c<fe, thus ignoring the distinction of Persons. On the other hand, if we point rov 0cov Xpurrov, and understand "the God Christ" (according to the rendering suggested, though not accepted, by Moule), the expression seems inconsistent with strict It defines 0cov by the addition Xpurrov, and Monotheism. therefore suggests that other definitions are possible. 6 0cos irarrjp is not analogous, for two reasons ; first, iranjp only suggests vioV, and, secondly, irarrjp expresses a relation proper to the Deity. EUicott, who considers the construction not indefensible, takes it to mean "of God, even of Christ" This is rather to suppose fjivo-njptov supplied before Xpiorov, which is certainly untenable. But this is clearly not what he means, and it suggests that he hesitated to accept either of the other renderings. According to the third view, Xptorov is in apposition to that Christ personally is the mystery of God fjLvorrjpiov9 so If this is the apostle's meaning, (Eilicott, Lightfoot, Moule, a/.). he has expressed himself very obscurely. As pwrrqpiov is an abstract name, when it is explained as a person, we should expect o iorty as in L 24, 27; 1 Cor. iii. n. Lightfoot understands the " mystery " not as " Christ," but " Christ as containing in Himself all the treasures of wisdom," and in illustration of the form of
240
[n. 2
the sentence compares Eph. iv. 15, cfe avrov . . . J* larnv ff KâXrjs Xpioros, i$ 6v vav to crfyia, x.r.\. This passage, it is obvious, adds another example of the use of o? larw in such sentences, and it can hardly be said to furnish a parallel to Lightfoofs interpretation of iv <S, for in Eph. iv. 15 a full stop might have been placed after Xpurros without impairing the figure. Moreover, the apostle has given a different definition of the fMKrr. in L 27 (to which he again alludes in iv. 3), and it is hard to suppose that he would give a different definition within a
few lines, for different this certainly is. The second translation mentioned above, "the God of Christ," has its parallel in the phrase, d 0c6? *at irarrjp 'Itjo-ov Xpicrrov, and in Eph. L 17, d 6coc tov Kvptov WU0V 'Iiprov Xptorov. This construction is adopted by Meyer and v. Soden. The addition of Xpicrrov is explained by the consideration that it is only through Christ that God's plan in this mystery is carried out; it is only because and in so far as God is the God of Christ that this /iwrnjpiov could exist and be Meyer adds, " He that has recognised God as the God revealed. of Christ, to him is the Divine ftwmjpiov revealed." This, after all, is not quite satisfactory, and requires us to read into the text more than is expressed. If the shorter reading tov 6cov (omitting Xptorov) is adopted, the difficulty disappears but the difficulty is not so obvious as to tempt the ordinary copyist to omit the word
;
readings are as follow : 6eoO. Without any addition. D* 37 67** 71 So 116. Adopted by Griesbach, Tisch. 2, Olsh., De Wette, Alford. B, Hilary of Poitiers (Ds Trim, ix. 62, "in (2) roO 6oO XpurroO. agnitionem sacramenti dei Christi," adding, "Deus Christus sacramentum Adopted by Lachmann, Tregeiles, and Lightfoot without a comma eat")after OeoO ; by Tisch. 8, RV. with a comma, also by Harless {Eph. p. 458),
The different
(1) roO
Ellicott,
(3)
*
Meyer, and
rod 0eo9,
Vigilius Thaps,
v. Soden. D* "Dei quod est Christus," de, 5 torw Xpurr6%. So Augustine, D* Trim, ziii 24, " Dei quod est Christus
Jesus."
8eoO warpot (add roO, C 4) XpurroO, K # C 4, Vulg. in Codd. Fuld. f. Boh. (add 'Iiproff, Lagarde). (5) rod 6eoO roi warpdf rod XpurroO, two of Scrivener's MSS. and a corrector in the Harclean Syriac (6) rod 6eo0 rarpot cat roO XpurroO, 47 73, Syr-Pesh. (ed. princeps and Schaaf). most (7) toO 6coG roi rarpbt roi roO XpurroO (Rec Text), cursives, Svr-Harcl. (text), Theodoret, etc. Isolated readings are (8) roO 6eri roi XpurroO, Cyril. Thss. p. 287. (9) rod SfoO tw Xpurrf, Clem. Alex. v. 10. 12, and with roO before A% So Ambrosiaster, " Dei in Christo." roC X/x<rroO is given by Tisch* 17. from his MS. of Euthalius, but with the remark, "sed non satis apparet." As far as documentary evidence joes (4) seems the best attested, and is probably the source of (3) (6) (7). But it 11 most probably an attempt to
(4) roO
Amiat
D*KL
II. 8]
HIS ANXIETY FOR
THE CHURCHES
24
remove the difficulty of the simpler reading (1) or (2). Of these (2) is preferred by the critics above named, as accounting for all the rest, (1) the witnesses for which are later, being supposed to have originated from an attempt to remove the difficulty of the former reading. Meyer thinks that the original reading must have involved some dogmatic difficulty, which (4) does not. The short reading, rod GeoO (1), would account for the others, but the attestation of it is not sufficiently early. Wescott and Hort suspect some corruption.
cV J. The antecedent is probably pwmipCov, not Xpiorov. the apostle is dwelling on is the greatness of the " mystery " (i. 27), and the importance of the knowledge of it, in opposition to the supposed wisdom of the false teachers ; hence the statement that "all the treasures," eta, are contained in it This is confirmed by the use of diroxpvôi, which corresponds to p.\xrrrjptov. So Alford, Eadie, Meyer, Soden, De Wette, etc.; but Ellicott, Lightfoot, and many comm. refer the <p to Christ With this latter reference, the wisdom and knowledge are those possessed by Christ as a treasure which He communicates. With the reference to fivtrr. the terms have an objective sense, these being characteristics of the Divine plan. These treasures St. Paul calls diroicpvôc, probably in allusion to the pretended hidden wisdom of the false teachers, which nevertheless was merely superficial and concerned external observances, whereas the true Christian wisdom was inward and profound These treasures of wisdom are not "kept concealed," faroKvcpvp/Uyoi, they are "hidden, laid up," airoKpwfxH ; but capable of being discovered For this reason, as well as on account of the position of the word, &voKpwf>oi is not to be construed with cmtiV as the direct predicate, a construction which would require it to come Meyer and Alford take the word as attributive, next to tUriv. "all the secret treasures." The absence of the article is against this, although not perhaps fatal; since, as Alford observes, ot Amfopvôt would imply that there were other treasures, only those that are secret being contained, etc. The position of the word, however, suggests that it is a secondary predicate (Ellicott, Lightfoot, v. Soden, a/.), "all the treasures, eta, as hidden treasures," *. " hiddenly," wore trap* avrov Set irovra atrciv. Chrys. "quo verbo innuitur quod pretiosum et magnificum est in Christo non prominere, aut protinus in oculos incurrere hominum carnalium, sed ita latere ut conspiciatur tantummodo ab illis quibus Deus oculos dedit aquilinos, id est, spirituales ad videndum," Davenant, quoted by Ellicott The word occurs in connexion with Apravpot in Isa. xlv. 3, Swcrv trot, (hpravpovs aKorttvovs &woicpwfrovs : also I Mace L 23, 2Aa/Jc rovs Orpavpov* tovs &iroKpwf>ow. On the Gnostic use of the word to designate their esoteric writings, see Iightfoor/s note. 1
&
What
reveals all the treasures of that
Mr. Charles compares Book of Enoch, 46. which Is hidden." 16
3,
"the Son of
Man who
242
[IL 4,
The expression Apravpfc ot^cat is used by Plato, Phikb. 15 E, &9 rwa orxjUas wprjKw ApravpoV, and by Xen. Mem. W. 2. 9, SyapaC aov 810V1 ofa opyvptbv koX xpw&v vpoct Aou Orpravpov*
rj aortas. ywSacws. These terms occur together, Rom. xL 33, and several times in Eccles. Sept "While yvwns is simply tittuitivCy o-<xf>ta is ratiodnative also. While yiwis applies chiefly to the apprehension of truths, <ro<f>ia superadds the power of reasoning about them and tracing their relations," Lightfoot Augustine's distinction is that <rwf>ia is " intellectualis cognitio aeternarum rerum"; yvoxris, "rationalis temporalium," so that the former pertains to contemplation, the latter to action (Be This, however, is quite opposed to usage. Trin. ml 20, 25). Aristotle, Eth. Nic. L 1, opposed yvwris to vpai . And in 1 Cor. xiil 2, St Paul connects yvwns with the apprehension of eternal
KacrrjoDai fiaXXov
00+ias
ical
pvorrjpia.
4. tovto Xfyw.
In
this expression tovto often refers to

it
follows, but with Iva
refers to
tovto is not to be limited to ver. included, if, indeed, the reference does not extend further back.
94
is
what what precedes ; cf. John v. 34. Ver. 5 shows that 1-3 are 3.
omitted in
K* A*
(apparently) B, but added in g*
AMV*CDKLP
and apparently all other authorities. Weiss considers it certainly genuine. Ira |&i|8cCf. So K* A BCD PaA trains, K*KL> most MSS.
frequent in reckonfallacious reasoning; hence, vapaXoyurpik, a fallacy or paralogism ; cf. avdrg rtvi vapaXoyta-dpevoi vpas, Aeschines, p. 16, 33. " By persuasive speech," " a persuasive style,** lv mOaroXoyio. Moule. The word occurs in Plato, Theaet p. 162 (mdavokoyiq. t ical cUoon) ; the verb mSavakoyeiv in Arist Eth. Nic L i ; also Diog. Laert x. 87, al. In classical writers the sense is only that of probable reasoning as opposed to demonstration ; but see Demosth. M 928, 14, Aoyovs Savpaa-tm irtOavovs, and ij viBavoXoyucy the art of persuasion," Arrian, Epict. L 8. 7. Compare St Paul, 1 Cor. iL 4, ofa ir0oT$ oo^ta? Xoyots, dAX* lv aVo8cici irvcvfiaro?. wiOavokoyia expresses the subjective means of persuasion, the personal influence; vapaXoy. the objective, the appearance of logic. 5. ct yap Koi. The *<u after e does not belong to the whole clause introduced by ct, but emphasises the word immediately following; cf. 2 Cor. iv. 16, xi. 6. It has been inferred from this that St Paul Tfj rapid Aircip. had been at Colossae ; but without reason. The same expression, indeed, occurs 1 Cor. v. 3 ; but this proves nothing, yap.
wapaXoy(li|Tat.
Jas.
;
In N.T. only here and

writers.
L 22
Sept and later Greek ing, and thence to
It applies primarily to false
IL
6]
HIS ANXIETY FOR
THE CHURCHES
243
dXX< introduces the apodosis, when it is contrasted with a hypothetical protasis ; cf. Rom. vl 5 ; 1 Cor. viiL 6 ; 2 Cor. v. 16, aL t$ WTCV/LUIT4, " in spirit," not " by the spirit," as Ambrosiaster and Grotius, " Deus Paulo revelat quae Colossis fierent" The antithesis is the common one of body and spirit ; cf. 1 Cor. v. 3, orw r*j> <ra>/Aari, vapwv 8k t<3 nrcvftarc oOk d|iiK. Stronger than fr v/uv, expressing union in a common
interest
xaipw
koI pXîrwK.
There
is
no need
to suppose a logical
transposition, or to separate the participles as if xa^fMV meant " rejoicing at being with you in the spirit " (Meyer, Alford). The
apostle's joy
joy led
him
may have been due to many circumstances, to contemplate further their orderly array.
and
this
The pronoun is placed emphatically first, not dfiWK tV t<{ik. so much to accentuate this rotc as an advantage which they possessed over others, as because the apostle's interest was in them personally and in the toi? only as belonging to them. tV t<1{ik koI to oTcp&pa. Both terms are supposed by Hofmann, Lightfoot, Soden, a/., to contain a military metaphor, perhaps suggested by St Paul's enforced companionship with the praetorian guard, orcpcayui being rendered by Lightfoot "solid front, close phalanx" ; by Soden, " bulwark," " Bollwerk." to is nab. i. 2. 18, l&oixra frequently used of military array, e.g. Xen. rip XafnrporrjTa teal rrp/ rd(tv tov arparevfiaro^ lOav/juaaw : Plut ViU Pyrrk l6, JcariSa>v rdw re *cu <^vA.a*a? #cat Kwrfioy avriav *ai to crrptt>/ia is found in the Sept ox*)pti Trji crrparoircSctac tfav/icurc i Mace. ix. 14 is quoted in support of Ps. xviiL 2 ; Gen. 16, j/. the military sense, ctSev 6 *Iou8ac 0V1 BaxxtSqs jcai to orcpe'w/ia
rip vapfif3o\ffc iv reus 8ctbi?. But neither word has this military sense of itself, but from the context, and here the context suggests nothing of the kind, rafc is used equally of the organisation of a state or a household, e.g. Demosth. p. 200, 4, ravrqv tjjv rdtv alpi<r6cu rrfc trokirttas. Compare also Plato, Gorgias, p. 504 A, Tafiw . . . jccu kwt/iov rvxowra ouchu St Paul has it again, x Cor. xiv. 40, vavra . . . Here the idea of a well-ordered state lies jcaTo rdiv ytvMia. much nearer than that of an army. The apostle rejoices in the The opposite state orderly arrangement of the Colossian Church. would be draia, and of this he finds some instances in Thessalonica, where some walked draxroK, and he reminds them ori ov* lyrcum/aa/uy ifuv (2 Thess. iiL 6, 8, xi). With orepttofw. tt}s tmttcok compare Acts xvl 5, &rrcpcowro rjj mcrret, and I Pet V. 9, S Lirrumfrt orcpcol r% iriartu It IS most natural to take the word here as = the firm structure of your faith, ore voXXa owayaywv crvyKoWyrut *>. the solidity of your faith, TVKvfc ical doWvaoTws, totc orcp&yia yurcrai, Chrys.
7 ;
244
[EL 6,
gather from this that the Church at Colossae was still sound in the faith, and it is instructive to observe how here as in other Epistles St Paul is careful to commend what he finds deserving of commendation. It is worthy of notice that d e translate as if they read vcrrcprjpa for arrtpidifia " quod deest necessitatibus fidei vestrae." Augustine agrees, quoting, "id quod deest fidei vestrae" (Ep. i^/ofu 98). So also Ambrosiaster. 6. fe ofo irapf\<0cTt. "As, then, ye received, i.e. from your teachers n = KaOm ifidOm &vo 'Eira^po, i. 7 ; icala* &coax%rc^ ver. 7. Compare 1 Thess. iv. 1, KaOm iropcXa/fcr* Trap ripmv to wCfc 8cc^ icr.X. ; 1 Cor. xv. 1, 2, xi. 23 ; Gal. L 9, 12 ; Phil iv. 9
substantially
(lfjJ.$T teal irapcAa/fere).
We
Ellicott, however, and Moule understand it as meaning that they received "Christ Himself the sum and substance of all teaching/' The sense is good, but does not agree so well with the usage of TrapakafjLfidviv or with the context, in which we have the contrast between true and false teaching in relation to the Christian walk (fco0o>9 (SiSd)(07jTf Kara rrjv irapd&oo-iv iw &v$p.). rbv XpurrdK 'It)oouk t&k Kvpiov. As St. Paul does not use the phrase 6 Xpurros 'Iô-ovs, this is naturally divided into t6v Xpurrw and 'Irjo-ovv rov Kvpiov, so that rbv Xp. is the immediate object of irapaX. This is confirmed by the frequency of 6 Xpun-09 in this Epistle, and by the designation of the object of the Christian preaching as 6 Xpwrros in Phil i. 15, 17. Further, it will be observed that in what follows up to iii. 4 it is not the notion of 'I170-0W or of Kupios that is prominent, but that of Xpurrk. The Christ, rather than the gospel, is specified as the object of the instruction, because " the central point of the Colossian heresy was the subversion of the true idea of the Christ," Lightfoot. 'Iqo-ovK rov Kvpiov adds to the official designation the name of Him to whom it belongs, " even Jesus the Lord." Compare Eph. iv. The position of rov Kvpiov after *Iiy<row (instead of the 20, 2 1. usual tov Kvpiov 'Ii7crow) points to the two elements of which the true doctrine of the Christ consists, viz. first, the recognition of the historical person, Jesus ; and, secondly, the acceptance of Him as the Lord. iv afrrA vcpiiraTciTc. This phrase does not occur elsewhere, but it corresponds to the idea of ras oSous fiov iv Xpurr^ 1 Cor. iv. 17 {wvraf iv Xpiorw, Rom. vi. 1 1, etc. 7. cppiluplvoi nal eiroiKoSofioiSficvoi. The propriety of the tenses is to be observed ; the settled state, which is the antecedent condition of ircpiiraTctv iv avrw, is expressed by the perfect ; the continual development which is always advancing, by the present The three figures are disparate, the apostle's thoughts being occupied with the lesson to be enforced, without regard to the consistency of his
IL
7]
EXHORTATION TO STEADFASTNESS
iii.
245
metaphor; see Eph.
18.
Some commentators
put a stop at
vpivaTiTf connecting the participles with the following ver. 8
a construction which leaves iv avr<3 it. very isolated. The en-*- in ivoiKoB. probably does not convey " the accessory idea of the foundation," which would not agree well with ev; besides, it is clear from n-cptiraretrc and eppi& that the apostle has not before him the distinct figure of a building, but is using the word as St Jude does, ver. 20, liroifco8o/j.oiVrcf cavrov? tq ayuardrg Lightvfjuw irc'crra, in the derived ethical sense " being built up.* foot remarks that in this Epistle and that to the Ephesians, Christ is represented rather as the binding element than as the foundation of the building ; see Eph. ii. 20. pcpcuoujxcwi qualifies the idea of both the preceding participles. The present gives the idea " being more and more stablished." Tjj morel is taken by Meyer and Lightfoot as an instrumental " Faith," says the latter, " is, as it were, dative, " by your faith." the cement of the building." But this is to press unduly the metaphor in Aroucod., which, as we have seen, is not intended any more than the other two verbs to convey a definite picture. There is no question here of the instrument, and rfj wiotci is better taken There irwms was that as a dative of reference, as in Jude 20. *a#u>? iStSaxGyre, "even as ye were which needed cj&uWi. taught," $\e. so that ye continue firm and true to the lessons which ye were taught by Epaphras ; cfc L 7, not " taught to be established by or in your faith."
ircpunrcuoinrcs
iv t^xaptorriijL
"Abounding
in
thanksgiving."
v\. is " with thanksgiving," then although even with this reading some expositors interpret "in your
If
h avrf} is read after ircpi<ro\,

TJ}
faith
abounding in thanksgiving.'9
rUrrt without
r fr,BDf 17 al t Vulg., Ambrosiaster, Theoph. 67*. most mss., Chrys. al. 4* tUttu, iw would from the impression made by the repeated h in the context most mss., Syr-Pesh. ir airrfr is added after TepuT<Tforrci in Arm., Chrys. Also K D* I d e f, Vulg. Syr. mg. have iw ar. The words are absent from K* 17 and some other mss., AmiaL Fuld. Eth. The words are omitted in the text of RV. but retained in the marginal reading. They may have been added originally from a recollection of iv. 2, where we have iv atfrg iw e^ga/Morif. This is rather more probable than that they were omitted because Tcpurffetorrcs was thought to be sufficiently defined by
wlrrei, ft readily come in
I^KLP,
AC
BDKL
AC
t*
ff^xapcffrifiu
So Weiss.
8-15. The apostle has reason to know (having, no doubt, been so informed by Epaphras) that there are amongst the Colossians teachers who are propagating mischievous heresies, dangerous to the faith, and inculcating precepts not consistent with their position as members of Chrisfs kingdom. These teachers make a professsion of philosophy, but it is a mere system of deceit and of human origin, and so far is it from being an advance on what they have been
246
[H. 8
taught that it really belongs to a more elementary stage of progress. Ye, he tells them, have been already made full in Christ, in whom dwells the whole fulness of the Godhead, and who is therefore far above all these angelic beings of whom they speak. Ye need no circumcision of the flesh, for ye have received in Christ the true circumcision of the spirit By Him ye have been raised from death to life, and His work is complete; He has wholly done away with the bond that was against you. " Beware lest there be anyone," 8. 0X*irT yA\ ns 5|ms Iotou For with the participle and article, cf. GaL i. 7, cZ /} rcrc? etc. c&w 01 tu/mWovtcs tfias. As it gives prominence to the person and his action, it appears to point to some particular person whom the apostle has in view but does not wish to name. Compare Ignat Smyrn. 5, oV nvcs AyvoowTCS apvovvrai . . . r& oWftara
&
ovk 28oc fwi cyypdiffcu. The future indie, tarai indicates the reality of the danger, cf. Mark xiv. 2, /iijiroTc &rrat Oopvfios, and Heb. iii. 12, jSXcircrc /it/wot* hrnu. 3k rive v/iaw, jct.X. fyta? before l<mu is somewhat emphatic: "you who are such persons as I have thus commended."
avruiv
.
. .
This oider, bfi&t i<mu, is that of have Arm tipt but fet which, as the more obvious order, was more likely to be written in em*.
BCKLP;
AD
6 auXaywywK. A later Greek word (not indeed found till after St Paul) used by Aristaenetus (iL 22) with 6Uov in the sense "plunder," in which sense it is understood here by Chrys. Theodoret, and some modems. Theodoret supplies tjjv tuttw, TheophyL tov vow. If this were the sense here, the object could hardly be omitted. But the proper meaning of the word seems to be " to carry off as spoil" So Heliodorus, Aeth x. 35, 6 rr/y i/i^v Ovydrepa (rvXaytayrjo-a^ And this meaning corresponds with that of the analogous Compounds, &ov\ay<ayiv, crKvaywyiv, \a<f>vpay<i)yciv. Von Soden remarks that it also corresponds better with the idea of a destroyed bond in ver. 14 to suggest that they might again be brought into bondage; c GaL v. 1. The Vulgate
is very inadequate. Sid -rijs +iXo<ro+ias. term not occurring elsewhere in the N.T., and no doubt adopted here because it was used by the false teachers themselves. The combination of it here with kcvtj dirany indicates that the sense is nearly "his philosophy, so called, which is a vain deceit" Compare ^cvSww/ao? yvakrts, 1 Tim. vi 20. n Chrysostom remarks : &rctoq 8o#cci crc/tvov cfrcu rd "ti}s ^cAoo-o^tas
" decipiat "
That the word <f>tA(xro<fiia was in use from Philo and Josephus. The former applies the word to the religion of the Jews and the law of Moses, perhaps for the purpose of giving dignity to them in the eyes of Gentile readers. He speaks of 4 jcot* Mmkrfy ^tXoo-oâ (De MuL
rrpoa-iOrjKt teal Kvr)s iforariys.
in Jewish circles appears
XL
8]
39),
WARNING AGAINST FALSE TEACHERS

rf
247
Nom.
rpctc
irdrptoc
<f>t\<xr<xf>ia
{Leg.
calls
ad
the
Cat.
23),
^cAoco^ta
(id.
33).
Josephus
three
1) lovSauoj Jewish sects
(Ant xviiL 1. 2). It is clear from the <f>i\o<ro<t>iat connexion with kcvt/s fadrrp that St Paul is not condemning philosophy in general, which, indeed, would be quite beside his
purpose. kcu acrijc dmfrnis. The absence of the article shows that this is not a different thing from y ^tAoo-oîa, but is a characteristic of it fordrri is opposed to Aoyo? rip akrfittas, L 5, and to cwfUa koX
yvwns, ii. 3. kotA T?jr vap&wTiv t&k Arip&rw. Probably to be connected with the immediately preceding words rather than with o-vAaywyw, The teaching of the Colossian false teachers was essentially tradiEssenes, their spiritual predecessors, as to possess such a source of knowledge. The oath taken by the full members of the former sect bound them not to communicate any of their doctrines to anyone otherwise than as he himself had received them, and, further, to guard carefully the books of their sect and the names of the angels (Josephus, BelLJud. iL 8. 7 ; Ldghtfoot, pp. 89, 90). Compare the designation Kabbala, "tradition," applied by the Jews to their later mystic theology. kotA tA oroixcia tou K&rpou. " According to the rudiments n of the world (?). This Kara with the following Kara Xpurrov may perhaps be best connected with roXaywywv, as the ideas they introduce have a different logical relation to the main idea, and ov Kara Xpurrov is too brief to form the antithesis to the other two
tional
esoteric.
and
The
well as the Gnostics, subsequently claimed
Kara clauses. tA oroixcto ( = GaL iv. 3) (originally " letters of the alphabet w) is generally understood by modern commentators as meaning of religious instruction n ; "elementary teaching," "the compare vaiSaywyos in Gal. Then rov jcoV/iov would mean having reference to mundane, or material, not spiritual things (Alford, Lightfoot, a/.). But De Wette takes mht/ioc as = " humanity," as the subject of this instruction (John iiL 16; 2 Cor. v. 19). So Oltramare. Meyer, on the other hand, understands by it "the non-Christian world," " rudiments with which the world concerns
ABC
itself"
(-
Bleek, Weiss,
a/.).
Neander judges that a comparison of all the Pauline passages and the Pauline association of ideas favour our understanding the phrase as denoting the earthly, elsewhere termed to <rapKucd\ Hence, iL 20, orocxela rov *6V/iov and Kocrpos may, he thinks, be
considered as synonymous.
An entirely different interpretation has been adopted by several recent commentators. According to this, rA ffrotxftla roO Ktxrpov are the personal According to Jewish ideas, not only were the stars elemental spirits.
248
[EL
conceived as animated bv spiritual beings, 1 but all things had their special In the Book of Enoch, 82. 10 ff., it is said with reference to the angels of the stars that they keep watch, that they may appear at their appointed times, in their proper orders, etc There are, first, the four leaders who divide the seasons, then the twelve leaders of the orders (taxiarchs), who divide the months ; and for the 360 days there are heads over thousands (chiliarchs), who divide the days. Anyone who is curious about the matter may learn the principal names in the book itself. In 18. 15 we read of stars which suffer punishment because they have transgressed the commandment of God as to their appearing. In the Book of Jubilees, cap. 2 amongst the creations of the first day are the Angels of the Presence, but also the angels of the winds, of clouds, of cold and heat, of hail, hoarfrost, thunder, etc. Perhaps Ps. civ. 4 may have some relation to this conception ; certainly it seems to be illustrated by the Apocalypse, vii. 1, 2, xiv. 18, xvL 5 (roO dyyfXov tQw 6Sdrw) f arix. 17 ; and by the interpolation in John v. 4. It is obvious that the term properly used of the elements ruled by these spirits might readily be applied: to the spirits themselves, especially as there was no other convenient term. It agrees with this that in GaL iv. 1 ff. those who were fcdouXvfUroi irr6 rd orwxtia roO ir&r/iou are compared to those who are under Mrporoi kclI oIko*6{uh,,& comparison which suggests personality in the former. And again, id. 8, 9, fovXefaw rots <pfoct pi) o&rw Bedtt appears to be equivalent to dovXefair rdtt <rro4xe*<*, k.t.X. In the present passage the observance of times and seasons, etc., is ar& r& 0r. r. *., not card Xp. f a contrast which does not agree well with the conception of or. as elements of instruction. This view of r&^rrotxefa gives special aim}, k.t.X., and ver. 10, pertinence to the proposition which follows, 5n St torn 4 ffeôX^ Tdunjs apxfy ** ôwfat. Ritschl defends this personal interpretation of *rmx<a at length (Rechtfertigung u. Versoknung, 3rd ed. ii. p. 252), but needlessly limits the meaning to the angels of the lawgiving. Spitta adopts the more general reference (Der Zweite Brief des Petras u. der Brief da Judas, 188< f 263 ff.). He quotes from the Test. Levi, c 4, a passage whicn speaks of the burning up of r& abpara vrtfjiaro, just as 2 Pet iii. 10 speaks of the burning up of gtwxcX*. This view is unreservedly adopted by Kuhl, the recent editor of the Epistles of Peter and Jude in Meyer's Komnuntar, and by v. Soden in his comment on the present
angels.
passage.*
See L 19; and on 323 ff. tijs 6coti)tos, "of the Godhead," i.e. of the Divine nature, ^co'nys, the abstract of 0*6$, must not be confounded with Oetorr^ which is used with propriety in Rom. L 20, and which means, not leonp is found in Lucian, the essence, but the quality of divinity,
9.
on
iv afrr$ kotoikci ttok to irX^pujia.
n-Aijpw/xa, Lightfootfs dissertation, Colossians, p.
fcarom.
koi
rbv fjJv rim ttd&tov coy cttcjcoAow, tois to, Scvrcpa rip $orrjTOi ; and in Plutarch, Mor. p. 415 C, he 8} cVu/xovcov 6\lyai /tfar hi XpoVa> iroAAi, but a few became in course of time 0co. The same author, Mor. p. 857 A, says, ircurcv KXfnrrtwM du6nrjT* iroXXyv koI Sucaioovvrjv fiaprvpi^ras,
iravrawao-i $6ttjto^ fir4ar\ov.
l notion which, it may be remembered, was shared by the great astronomer Kepler. 1 In Test. Solomonis (Fabricius, Cod. Pseudep. Vet. Test. i. 1047) we read 4/Mtt iffpiw t* Xeydfiera (rnwxeta, ol Koafuncpdropes rod k6*/jav to&tov, dwdrrj, tpit, K\60iart 4Xqt T\init dfoajur, k.t.X. This, however, is a very late document.
XL 10]
*.*
THEIR COMPLETENESS IN CHRIST
249
a Divine faculty. The Versions generally, including the Vulgate, to mark the distinction, doubtless for want of a word to express IcoYys. The word deitas was a later coinage (not quite according to Latin analogy). Trench quotes from Augustine, De Civ. Dei,
fail
viL
1,
" Hanc divinitatem, vd, ut

uti
sic
dixerim deitatem
nam
et
jam nostros non piget, ut de Graeco expressius transferant id quod illi Oconpu appellant" 9 Not Awpdrm as in the rofumatfe, " bodilywise, corporeally.' in His glorified body aupa Xoyos before the Incarnation, but Chrysostom draws attention to the rrjs tefrp afrov, FhiL iii. 21.
hoc verbo
accuracy of the expression,
/*$ vo/tfojp
0cw
ovyjcexXcurfai,
<fc
iv
This interpretation, which is that adopted by most modern commentators, is the only one tenable, but many others have been suggested. Theophylact and Oecumenius took the word to mean "essentially," owrtwfos, i.e. not merely as an influence, as in the
saints or as in the prophets.
So
Calvin, Beza, and,
more
recently,
Olshausen and UsterL But the word cannot have this meaning. Augustine (JSpist. 149) understands it to mean "really" not * typically," "vere non umbratice," not "umbratUiter," as in the temple made with hands ; and so many moderns (including Bengel and Bleek), comparing ver. 17, where aw/m is contrasted with o-kuL But there the idea is that of a body which cast a shadow, and the passage does not justify our rendering the adverb " really." Others, again, understanding wXrjpvfML of the Church, take cro/Aaruco* to mean, " so that the Church is related to Him as His
al.\ thus making the body of Christ dwell in Christ, instead of Christ in the body. 10. sol iork cV aMf vcirXtipttplroi. "And ye are in Him made fulL" Alford, Elhcott, and Lightfoot render, "ye are in Him, made full," regarding the clause as containing two predications. But the connexion seems to require the fact to be emphasised, that it is "in Him " that the vtirXqpwijJvov rests for on this depends the inference that nothing more is lacking in our relation to God. The vv\rfp(ofUyoi obviously corresponds with the irXrjptofia. Christ is irorA.i/poyiA'o* : ye being in Him share in His wX^poj/io, and are therefore yourselves irtirkfipw/Uvot. Compare John L 16, Ik tov TrXrjpu>fiaros avrov ^/icts infarct i\afiofjL(v : Eph. iii. 9, Iva v\rfp<D$rjr cfc way ro v\^pnfia rev 8cov, also Und. iv. 13 and L 23.
body" (Baumgarten-Crusius,
cW
nearly all mss. with the Latin e f g $t lew. SoK 47* with d have 6 Amr, Vulg. and Chrys. Theodoret, ai. But B perhaps a correction made on the supposition that a&rf referred to r\^pwfta t or by oversight c was lost before e c. Lachmann adopts it, placing koI to 4w afiri} in a parenthesis. The image, however, would be quite confused if the wXtpupa were represented as the head ; ^ ccôM is always Christ. & also to rX^pupo, and this would Besides, we should be obliged to refer
ACKLPud
DG
250
[XL
not yield any tolerable sense* Ewald, adopting 6 4artw t takes it as = " scilicet," comparing i. 24, 27 and iii. 17 ; but this would require rjj iceâXg. i\ kcôXî v&nit ipx^ Ka^ 4(ovo-Cas. He is the head of all those angelic powers to whose mediation the false teachers would teach you to seek. As they are subordinate to Christ, ye have nothing to expect from them which is not given you in rail completeness in Christ
1L cV & xal ircpicT|u)0T|T6. " In whom also ye were (not are,' AV.) circumcised." " Ye have received the circumcision of the heart, by which ye have put off the whole body of the flesh, and therefore ye have no need of the symbolical circumcision of the
as
flesh."
The
Christian
aorists
point to the time of their reception into the
Church by baptism. TepiTopjj, "with a circumcision," not " the circumcision." cf. Mark &X<ipoiroWJT^, " not wrought by hands," not physical xiv. 58 ; 2 Cor. v. 1 ; and Eph. ii. 1 1, where we have the other side of
:
the contrast, olAcyd/x-evoi SucpofivoTia xnro r>}s Xeyoficvrfi irptrofirj cv aupKi x"poiroir}Tov. The idea of spiritual circumcision is frequent in the O.T.; see note on the passage in Eph. In St Paul, compare Rom. il 28 ; PhiL iii. 3. At first sight it might appear from this clause that the Colossians had been tempted like the Galatians to submit to circumcision. But in that case we should find, as in the Epistle to the Galatians, some direct condemnation of the practice; whereas in 16-23 there k no reference to it Possibly the allusion here is to some claim to superiority on the part of the false teachers. Iv specifies that in which the ictptroiuq concV rg AircK&foci. sisted. The substantive omtckcWis has not been found in any earlier writer (for the verb, see ver. 15). It expresses a complete putting off and laying aside, and was probably chosen with reference to the figure of circumcision. The connexion requires it to be understood passively, not " ye have put off," but " was put off from you." too cnSfuiTos TJjc <rapit6s, i.e. " the body which consists in the M the fleshly body," so that we are no more iv rjj <rapKL flesh," (Rom. vii. 5, viii. 8, 9). The change is ideally represented as complete, which it is in principle. Some expositors take <rS>fui in the sense of "mass, totality" (Calvin, Grotius, a/.) ; but this is against N.T. usage, and does not agree so well with the context, the images in which are connected with the body, " buried, raised." The expression ou/ta rip o-apicoc, i. 22, has a different meaning.
The Rec Text after <rcfy*arot adds t&v d/ia/m<2r, with most mss., Syr., Chrys. etc. The words are absent from K A B CD* G P some good Lat Vulg. Boh. etc They are clearly a gloss.
cV
rfl
^D^KL and
cursives,
Old
wp4Tojifi
tou
XpurroS.
The
simplest
and most natural
1;
XL
14]

:
25
"the circumcision which belongs to Christ, and brought about by union with Him," in contrast to the circumcision of Moses and of the patriarchs. Thus it is nearly equivalent 1 to " Christian circumcision/ but expresses the idea that the source
interpretation is
is
of this circumcision
is
in Christ
object, the thought being
taken Xpun-ov as the genitive of the supposed to be that in the circumcision of Christ we are circumcised. So Schottgen " Circumcisio Christi
:
Some commentators have
qui se nostri causa sponte legi subjecit, tarn efficax fuit in omnes homines, ut nulla amplius circumcisione carnis opus sit, praecipue quum in locum illius baptismus a Christo surrogatus sit 1' This is not only without support from Scripture analogy, but is foreign to the context, in which the circumcision spoken of is dxeipoTrolr/ro^ The baptism mentioned in ver. 12, in which we are buried with Him, is our baptism. Soden also takes Xpurrov as an objective genitive, understanding, however, n-coiro/ii? in the sense of <hr&6Wic tow ow/iaroc rrp capicos just specified, which echoes i. 22. Chrysostom and Theophylact understand the genitive as subjective, 6 Xptords vpiTfivt iv tw ($airri<rpjiTi dircicSiW rjfias rov vaXatov /Mov, Theoph. This does not harmonise with the following
(TWTa<f>VTS avrtp.
afrrw, k.t.X. We have the same figure in Rom. which may almost be regarded as a commentary on this passage. The figure was naturally suggested by the immersion in baptism, which St Paul interprets as symbolical of burial, the emersion similarly symbolising the rising again to newness of life. outro^KTcs is to be connected with trcouTfu^Tc, and specifies when and how this was brought about
19.
mivra+lms
vi. 3, 4,
Iv t$ fUm-Coân. So most authorities, K* A C 1> K L P, etc. But H BD*FG47 <>7 a 71 have parrurfu}, which Lightfoot prefers on the ground that it is the less usual word in this sense. That it might be so used is shown by its occurrence in Josephus, Ant. zviii. 5. 2, of the baptism of John. But in two of the other three passages in which it occurs in the N.T., it means lustration or washing, e.g. of vessels : Mark vii. 4 (in Rec. also 8); Heb. ix. 10. Hie third passage, Heb. vi. 2, is doubtful In the Latin version as well as in the Latin Fathers, "baptisma " and " baptismus " are used indifferently. St Paul uses the substantive " baptism " in only two other places (Rom. vi. 4 ; Eph. iv. 5), and this is not sufficient to supply any basis for inference as to his
usage.
P&TTurp* the act as complete.
Etymologically parrifffiAs would signify rather the act of dipping, Weiss thinks the former more suitable here.
b <J, viz, Pairrta-fMLTu This seems clearly required by the analogy between owra^crrc* iv and avyrfypOrfT. Chrysostom, Xpurru. Meyer defends however, and most comm. understand this on the ground, first, of the parallelism ofivw koI <S *<u secondly, because, if baptism were intended, tv would not be suitable to the rising again, and we should expect c', or at least the non-local &a; and, lastly, because as owra^cVrcs is defined by
252
cv

(Hairr.,
[IL 12
so is awr/ypOTfr by 8ia rr}^ irioTcai? ; and, therefore, suggests no reason for continuing to it the former definition also. To the second objection (adopted also by Eadie), it may be replied that pdwrurfm (fiairrurfto*;) includes the whole act It is only when we take in the two things signified, the "death unto sin" and the "new birth unto righteousness," or the putting off of the old man and the putting on of the new, that fiairTtxrfia can be identified with irtpiropLij &xlP07r0<-VT s I for wpirofxrf also signified the entrance into a holy state as well as the separation from the state of nature. The first objection has really no weight, for it is much more natural to connect awrfytpOrfTt with <rwra<f>VT<; than with ircpier/jwJ^Tc ; and this is strongly confirmed by the passage in Rom. just referred to crwerctyiÂcv a\mZ o\a rov Pairrifrfiarof . . tva &nrcp rjy^pdr) Xpurr6s . . . ovrarc jcai rjfiei? tv Kauvorrjri {an}? vcpMrariJoxtf/ACv, k.t.X. Further, as Lightfoot observes, the idea of Xpurrw must be reserved for <rwrjypOriT, where it is wanted " ye were raised together with Him." (So Alford, Beza, De Wette, Ellicott, Lightfoot, Soden, a/.) the
text
: :
tw
avvr\yipfa\T.
6rfT
Xpurrov
-njs
iircvouo-ao-fc.
Compare GaL iiL 27, oo-ot cis Xpurrov iftavrurThe Xpurrov hrcvSwrao-Oat presupposes
rrjs capucos.
the iiriKoWis rov awfiaros

Sid
moTcus rtj$ iKcpyeias too 6co0. "Through your faith in the working of God." Bengel, De Wette, a/., understand cvcpycia* as a genitive of cause, "faith produced by the operation of God." But the genitive after trum?, when not that of the person, is always
that of the object Cf. Mark xL 22 ; Acts iii. 16 ; Rom. iiL 22 Eph. L 19 is cited Gal. ii. 16, 20; Eph. iiL 12 ; Phil. L 27, etc. in favour of this interpretation, but Kara rrjv Ivcpyctav there is not The to be joined to row irurroWra? ; see note on the passage. former interpretation is also more suitable to the context The irums here is specified as faith in the resurrection, itmjtcvovtcs yap rjj rov 0cov owd/ict ir/xxr/Acvo/tcv rfpr dvdWao-tv, M^ypov côircs tov
Scottotov Xpioroi) rrpr avaaraa iv9
,
iwiaTv<rar
Faith is only by a belief in the resurrection can the rising again with Christ be appropriated by the individual. By belief in the resurrection of Christ we believe in the power of God, of which it is an evidence ; and this belief, again, is the means by which that power works in the life and produces an effect analogous to that resurrection. Compare Rom. iv. 24, vL 8, x. 9. B 17 and most mss. have rwv before vc#cpo>v ; and several cursives omit it In most instances of this or similar phrases he vtKp&v is used without 7w, and with no variety in codd. and some twenty-five mss. prefix tw.) But in (In Eph. L 20 and many mss., with Chrys. Theodoret 1 Thess.
Theodoret irwrrcaw oXov iarw* ovtw iJy^p0i/T, Chtys. the subjective means by which the grace is received;
on owarai
6 cos {yctpat, ko\
DG
KACKLF
LiogBDGLP
IX. 18]
253
/.,
have iw,
A C K and
many
mss. omitting it
It seems, there-
was omitted here in conformity with usage than that it was wrongly added. See on Lk. xx. 35. 13. sol 6|i&$, vtKpods Sktos rots vapaimSjiaoi . ApA?. See Eph. il i* Apt*. <rapicos ical rfl dxpopuort? *rij? Some commentators understand tropufe as a genitive of apposition, or "epexegetical," "the uncircumdsion which consisted in your carnal, sinful nature " "txquisita appellatio peccati originalis," BengeL But the apostle could hardly have said vcicpou? rjj <rapicl v/xCty without some further If, indeed, he were addressing Jews, the expression in definition. this sense would be intelligible, since it would be at once obvious that &Kpof3. was figuratively used, and therefore <rapK& also. But though intelligible it would be very strange, as it would imply a hidden contrast between the literal and figurative meanings of <rap.
fore,
more probable
that twv
addressed to Gentiles, who had the literal &KpoPwrrta ti}s the words can hardly be understood otherwise than as referring to the external fact But it is referred to only on account of its symbolical significance. Dead in your trespasses and your alienation from God, of which the uncircumcision of your flesh was a symboL it}? capKos appears to be added in contrast to the &xipoiroiYjro^ and at the same time to suggest the *piTOfiri symbolical sense. Hence the apostle does not say ^fuov, although
As
<rap*os,
presently after
he introduces the
It is
first
person.
The Rec. Text has

and most mss.
4p before t<ki rapairrdfuunw, with
omitted by Tisch. Lightfoot, with H* B 17 and some and a few others, with the Latin deg, prefix other mss. Chrys. D* to rj iKpopwrrla also.
tCACDFGKP L h
9uvcloiroii|acK
fljias.
v/*as is
repeated for emphasis.
So K*ACKL and about fifty cursives, Syr. Eth. etc. B 17 37 and more than twenty other cursives read Itfi&i , conforming to the following 1yjur. K'DGP and many mss. Old Lat. Vulg. Boh., Chrys. etc. omit. The reasons for omission may have been the desire to simplify the grammar, and to avoid the proximity of dfi&i and û>. As B reads iifuis here for 6/ub, so KLP and many others, with Vulg.
Eth., Theodoret, al, have ifup for
i)fjur.
Eph. iL 5. What is the subject? Christ ; partly on account, Ellicott, following Chrysostom, replies first, of "the logical difficulty of supplying a nom. from the subordinate gen. ecov"; secondly, of the prominence given to Christ throughout the preceding context, the acts described in the participles (#aA. #ct.A., compared with Eph. il 15, and \apur. with Col. iil 13) ; and, lastly, the difficulty of referring w. 14 and 15 to God the Father. On the other hand, the reasons for adopting 6 0cds as the subject seem decisive. (1) There is really less logical difficulty in supplying 6 cos from tov 9cov rov tyt(crwcfwoirofyrf, see
:
On
254
[IL 14
parrot than in supplying 6 Xptoros from avroirouprc as to cycipatTos. (3) This is further confirmed by the <rw in crvnfaoTTolrprtv, and by <rvv aur<p. He that quickened you along with Him must surely be the same who is said to have raised Him. (4) In St Paul it is always God, not Christ, who is the subject of
lycijpct, <rwcycijpct, o>oirotc^ <rvva>oiroici.
(5) Lastly, in
Eph.
ii.
4,
so closely parallel, o 0co? is the subject of owco*oii;o-c. Hence we seem compelled to take 6 cos here as the subject, whatever the difficulty of w. 14, 15. And so Meyer, Alford,
is
which
Soden. "having forgiven." Moule prefers " forgiving," i.e. in the act of quickening. There is no grammatical objection to this; but logically, at least, the xapL&o-dai must precede the {awvouiv. The verb xaP^(T âl properly means "to grant as a favour" (see on Eph. iv. 32). Compare in the N.T. Luke vii. 21, ixapuraro ftktotv: Acts iii. 14, <f>ovla xtHMr^l vaJL ' xxv- XI > &*k ib. 16, xxvii. 24, kv^mttqI <roc 6 0cos fi Bvvarax avroh xap(<ra<rOai trdyrai tovs wXiovras /icra <rov. Phil. i. 29 ; Philem. 22. It does not seem necessary to suppose that its use in the sense "forgive an offence" is derived from that of "forgiving a debt " ; but even if so, there is no reason to think that it continued Here at all events, notwithstanding to suggest the latter idea. X"p6ypa<fiov, it would appear not to have been so intended, else irapaimaf/ATa would hardly be used, which would interfere with the figure. See on Lk. vii. 21, 42.
Lightfoot,
v.
xapurdficras,
tlfuy is here the right reading, with Goth. Syr. (both), Boh. Arm., Chrys. a/. vfuM is read by K L P and many mss.
K*ABCDGK
f,
and most mss., d eg
Vulg. Eth.
The
apostle at the
moment, as we may say, includes himself, claiming his share in the transgression and in the forgiveness. Such transition is frequent with him ; cf. L 10-13, 3 4; Eph. ii 2, 3, 13, 14, iv. 31, 32, v. 2. For the converse transition see Gal. iii. 25, 26, iv. 5, 6. If xapffd/urot were simultaneous with ovrefaorolipey, St. Paul must have used vfuv here.
earliest
Xapur&ficvos,
out).
14. {(aXctyas, "blotting out" (because simultaneous with and specifying the act by which the xaP- was carried
Strictly,
it means "wiping out or away," "cera obducta used of "sins," Acts iii. 19; of a "name," Rev. " tears," Rev. vii. 1 7, xxl 4. iii. It is used also in classical 5 ; of writers of blotting out or wiping out a writing, eg. Plato, Rep. p. 386 C, p. 501 B, and hence of abolishing a law, Bern. p. 468, 1,
delere."
It is
etc.
to naO* 1\\h*v xcipoypa+oi'. "The bond that was against us." xcipoypaôv, properly an autograph, was in later Greek a technical term for a written acknowledgment of debt, for which the older
H.
14]
THE BOND BLOTTED OUT

<rvyypa<f>ri
255
term was
the usual
or
ypafjLfiaTtov.
Roman
legal
term;
cf.
Cic.
Fam.
" Chirographum n became vii. 18; Juvenal, Sat.
xvi 41.
Here the \ip6ypa<f>ov is the Mosaic Law, which being unfulfilled analogous to an unpaid " note of hand." But the figure must not be pressed too far, for in this case the xlPYPa <t>0V was not Nor is it necessary to suppose that the written by the debtor. apostle had in view the assent of the Jewish people ; Deut. xxvii. 14-26 ; Ex. xxiv. 3 (Chrys. Oecum. TheoprL Lightfoot, etc.), or in the case of the Gentiles the assent of conscience to the moral The fact of obligation is sufficient to justify the use of the law. figure. Hence it is to Koff rjfia>v xupoypafov, but not wuov x*tpoypaôv. Although the Gentiles had not the written law, they had " the work of the law written in their hearts," and therefore come
is
under the same obligation. For a detailed account of other views of xttpoypafav, see Eadie. S6y|Murii'y "consisting in Soypara, i.e. ordinances," compare Eph. iL 15, riv vofwv rStv cvroXGtv iv Sdypatrt, where see note on the meaning of Soy/Ao, which in the N.T. is always "a decree." The dative is best regarded as closely connected with x*ip6ypafov only, being dependent on the idea of ytypafi/Uvov involved die word Compare Plato, Ep. vii. p. 243 A, 8 &/ wda-x^ to. So Meyer, Alford, Eadie, Lightfoot, Soden. yypafifiva rwois. The explanation is not without difficulty, as xLP7- 1S a synthetic compound; and Lightfoot thinks it possible that iv may have If so, it must dropped out after the similar termination -ov. have been in the earliest ages that the error occurred, since no
trace remains of the reading cv. Two or three other explanations deserve notice;
first,
that
of Winer, 0/., followed by Eilicott, according to which ooy/uun is a nearer definition of the whole, to Kaff ^/aw xtipoypafov expressing at the same time what the x LPyPa<t>y was> and in what respect it was against us. For this we should expect to tois Soypcurw naff fffuov X'i Or to Kaff rifjL&v x* i"v ooyfurrwv, or the like. Erasmus, Olshausen, Conybeare, and others connect toIs toy/xcurtv with the following clause: "the handwriting, which by its ordinances, was against us," a very unnatural construction, for which Acts i. 2 affords no parallel The Greek commentators (Chrysostom, Severianus, Theodore Mops., Theodoret, Oec., Theoph.) connect &>ypao*tv with iaA.ctyas, understanding the word to mean the doctrines or precepts of the gospel, as the instrument by which the blotting out was effected. Jerome adopts this view; and so, amongst moderns, Grotius, Estius, Bengel, Fritzsche. But this is not only opposed to the use of ooypa in the N.T., but, what is of more importance, it is inconsistent with fact.
256
[IL 14
For it is not by precepts or doctrines (^ cvayyeAwoy oVoWxaXta, Theoph.), nor by faith (Theodoret), that the handwriting, i>. the Mosaic Law, is abrogated. Moreover, the cognate verb Soy/urnc<r0c in ver. 29 has obvious reference to the My/mra here, and it is implied that such Soyyuira are obsolete. It is remarkable that the Greek commentators named above do not even allude to the correct interpretation, adopting without question that construction which was grammatically simplest Irenaeus, however (quoted by Lightfoot), appears to have taken the more correct view. The term ooy/mra is used here instead of v6fiosf doubtless in order to fix attention on the formal element, the plurality of precepts, an element which was common to it and the Soy/wmjciv of the false teachers. It thus prepares for the ti 8oy/artca4c of ver. 20. See on Lk. ii. 1. S ty dircpamor 4||ur. "Which was directly opposed to us." Here first the idea of the hostility of the xiipoypaôv is expressed, the Kaff vfitav only asserting its validity with reference to us. vircvairiof occurs again Heb. x. 27. The vrrd does not in this word imply either secrecy (Beza, a/.) or mitigation, as = " subcontrarius," a signification which wro in composition often has, but which does not belong to fa-cwrioc either in the Sept or in classical writers. For the Sept cf. Gen. xxii. 27 ; Ex. xxiii. 27 ; and for classical usage, two passages cited by Lightfoot, viz. Arist De Gen. et Corr. L 7, toucan ol tovtov rbv rpoirov Acyovrcs xnrcvavria <fxuv<r$at Acyciv, where it means "self-contradictory," and [Plato] Alcib. Sec. 138 C, SO. To fiaiv<r$at $pa wrcvavriov <rot Sojcci Tip ifapovttv ; AA. Ham phr ofiv . . 139 B, SO. Kal jjltjv Bvo y xnrcvavria ivl icpdypaTi iru* av clrj, where the argument turns on the sense of direct opposition involved in the word. xal afrrd Jjpicci' tou plow. "And it (emphatic) He hath taken out of the way." The \ipoypa<t>ovy *e writing on which had been blotted out, has now been itself removed out of the way. alpcw Ik tov fUa-ov or fi<rov was a classical expression for removing out of the way, as, on the contrary, <v p.i<rw <Zvax meant " to be in
the way."
xvii.
jcara^rcv8co-0ai xal
For the former, compare Dem. De Corona, p. 354, to &V (\0pav rt kcyciv dvcAoWa? Ik /xccrov ; also Acts
33 and 2 Thess. ii 7, pjovov 6 fcarcxuv apri c av Ik ficaov The idea " from between us and God " is not implied, but only that of an obstacle, as these and other passages show. The change of structure from the participles to the finite verb is to be noted, as well as the perfect ypucy. The perfect fixes attention on the present state of freedom resulting from the action which was especially before the apostle's mind. " It is suggested, ' says Lightfoot, " by the feeling of relief and thanksgiving which rises up This is quite sufficient to in the apostle's mind at this point" account for the change of construction ; but there was another and
ycvryrau
1
TL
15]
THE BOND BLOTTED OUT
2$7
more imperative reason

cipial definition to the
in the necessity for adding a further parti" taking away." It is clear that apas . . .
idea.
YpcxTtyAaxra?
would not have conveyed the same
Lightfoot and others suppose a change of subject at fyKer, viz. from 6 Bc6t to 6 Xptarot. new subject, it is thought, must be introduced somewhere, because " no grammatical meaning can be assigned to drexdvadfupos by which it could be understood of God the Father," and the severance created here by the change of construction suggests this as the best point of transition, the alternative point being at drcKdvcdfJuwos. Barry observes that such grammatical anomalies are not uncommon in St Paul. But certainly this cannot be said of such a misleading confusion or hidden change of subject as this would be. Lightfoot compares the transition in i. 17-19. If the interpretation given in the note there is correct, there is no hidden transition, the subject of MbKyaar being expressed. But even if 6 Ge6t is the subject of ei&6KTj<rer in L 19, there is no analogy. For the change of subject there is not concealed, and the only peculiarity is that 6 Oefc is not expressed ; and the very ground on which commentators defend this view of the construction is that the verb iC&oKeip and the substantive &8okUl are so often used absolutely of God's good pleasure that the verb itself suggests " God " as its subject. Here, on the contrary, there is nothing in the words to indicate or suggest a new subject. On the contrary, fipw 4k rod yjkcov only expresses a different aspect of the same idea that is presented in âXetyw. No intelligible reason has been alleged why St Paul should say, "God blotted out the handwriting, Christ removed it out of the way.** Indeed, had this been stated with the subjects expressed, it would have created a difficulty. Further, this view is open to the fetal objection, that it dissociates xapurd/uwot and loXe<âf from the Cross. It inevitably suggests that the forgiveascribed to God are one thine, ness and the blotting out of the giP^rfPa^ and the removal, etc, ascribed to Christ a distinct and subsequent work. V. Soden, indeed (who, however, does not suppose any change of subject), He remarks that in the figure itself suggests such a distinction as possible. atpcir wpoffijktfoam denotes a step beyond ta\d<f*ip, so that we might regard the l(o\. as accomplished in the sending of Christ, the atpeir 4k rod He considers it more probable, however, that both fiiaov in His death. expressions are figures for one and the same thing, the xapifea&u rd rapaTTdyfjtara, the former applying to it in its effect, the latter adding the means by which the effect is accomplished.
The aorist expresses the historical verb does not occur elsewhere in the N.T., but is found in classical writers, and with crravpti in 3 Mace iv. 9, and Joseph. BclLJud. ii. 14. 9. The thought expressed is similar to that in As Meyer observes, "since by the death of Christ on Gal. iiL 13. the Cross the law which condemned men lost its penal authority, inasmuch as Christ by His death endured for men the curse of the Law and became the end of the Law, hence in the fact that Christ as a IXaorripiov was nailed to the Cross, the Law itself was nailed n The figure in irpwnfthereon, whereby it ceased to be iv /Utr^. XoKrac is suggested simply by the idea of the crucifixion ; there is no reason to suppose, with Grotius, any allusion to a custom of driving a nail through obsolete laws or decrees, and so hanging them up in public, a custom which seems to be unproved. 15. AvutoWrfficKOS Td? Apx&S Kat r&S tfoocias, c&ciyjidTurcF,
*po<n)\tf<ra$ afro tcJ crraupuL
fact.
The
17
258
k.t.\.
[XX.
10
The verb Airc8v<rtfai appears not to occur in any writer before St Paul ; its occurrence, therefore, here and in iil 9, as It is, no doubt, well as that of d7rc*c8wis in ver. 1 1, is remarkable. chosen in order to express more emphatically the completeness of the action. Both iro8vccv and fc8iW occur in classical authors in the sense " strip," hence of enemies, " strip of arms, spoliare.' For cVcSvctv in the sense "strip," see Matt xxvii. 28, 31; Mark The middle occurs 2 Cor. v. 4 of putting oft xv. 20 ; Luke x. 30. the mortal body. In this Epistle, iii. 19, dircKfiuorfpcvoi occurs again in the sense "strip off and put away," viz., rov vvXcubw avOponrov. It is very difficult to decide in what sense the word is
used here.
First, it
has been taken absolutely, " having put off from himself he made a show," eta, as RV. marg. This, which supposes 6 Xptcrro? to be the subject, is the interpretation adopted by Hilary, Ambrose, Augustine, and some other Latins. Probably, however, they had before them a Latin counterpart of the reading found in G, viz. rijv tropica koX ras #owtas. The Latin of G has the same. Thus Hilary has twice, "exutus carnem et potestates ostentui feat" (773, 990); once, however, he has "spolians se
his
body,
came et principatus et potestates ostentui fecit " (204). Novat also has "exutus carnem potestates dehonestavit"
It will be observed that these quotations, except (JDe Trin. 16). in omitting to.? &px<k* the third from Hilary, agree with This
reading may have originated from the eye or ear error of a copyist, aided by the suggestion of aircxS. ; but more probably was a gloss, which was supposed to be a correction, and so substituted for the correct text There is a trace either of the reading or the interpretation in a Docetic work quoted by Hippolytus, Haer. viil 10, t$ aw/urn rpa^cura, dircicSvcra/^vi; to crai/ia p. 267, *frux?l fcelvty Kal vpoa^Kuxraau vpbs to vXov #ccu OpuLfiftcwraxra &Y avrov ras ApWs, k.tX The Syriac Peshitto has the same interpretation, " by the putting off of his body " ; and so the Gothic also. In support of this interpretation 2 Cor. v. 4 is referred to, where the cognate verb K&vowrO<u is used absolutely of putting oft the body. But there the metaphor is not abruptly introduced, the verb only carrying out the figure introduced with its explanation in w. 2, 3. Here it would be quite isolated, being neither explained nor suggested by anything in the context, with which, indeed, the idea would have no apparent connexion. Some expositors, indeed, have found an allusion to the metaphorical use of airoSvccrlcu, " to
&
fivoi rrjv iroXiTtiajv vpa(iv.
prepare for a contest," as in Plut Mor. 81 1 E, irpbs naouv diro8w> This explanation is very far-fetched,
entirely unsuitable.
2.
and
Ellicott, Lightfoot, a/., adopt the interpretation of the Greek commentators, Chrysostom, Severianus, Theodore Mops., and
IL
15]
SPOILING OF PRINCIPALITIES
AND POWERS
259
Theodoret, viz. taking ras &p\ds, k.t.X., as governed by dirc*8., the sense being, " having stripped off from himself the hostile powers of " Our Lord by His death stripped away from Himself all evil."
the opposing Powers of Evil (observe the article) that sought in the nature which He had condescended to assume to win for themselves a victory," Ell. Similarly Lightfoot, a Christ took upon Himself our human nature with all its temptations (Heb. iv. 15). The powers of evil gathered about Him. Again and again they assailed Him ; but each fresh assault ended in a new defeat" " The final act in the conflict began with the agony of Gethsemane it ended with the Cross of Calvary. The victory was complete. The enemy of man was defeated. The powers of evil, which had clung like a Nessus robe about His humanity, were torn off and And the victory of mankind is involved in the cast aside for ever. victory of Christ In His Cross we too are divested of the poisonous clinging garments of temptation and sin and death ; tw diro0c<r0uXtv cfo/ryccrias,
dircSwraro tcaKtlvtav
(i.e.
riav &yrucifiViay
Swdfuwy)
rrjv
av$vriav $ir*p
lKXp-qvro Koff ij/iw."
But
In the
this interpretation is
first
place, as the verb
us to regard these hostile or Christ, a " Nessus robe," as Lightfoot expresses it If the interpretation, " putting off the body," is to be rejected on the ground that the metaphor, though a natural one, is not suggested or explained by the context, the objection applies more strongly to the view in question, which supposes a metaphor by no means easy to understand and not elsewhere paralleled The putting off the old man, ch. iii. 9, is not at all parallel. Lightfoot compares Philo, Quod det. pot ins. 13 (i. p. 199), where the image in the context is that of a wrestling bout, i(avourrdvri 8c teal Sufxura/jLcvoi ras brrcxyavs avrwv ircptirAofca? vfiapw$ cfcSv<rdfLC0a ; but there the figure is sufficiently explained by the context. Here (and this is the second objection) the figure would be irrelevant to the context As Alford observes, " is it in any way relevant to the fact of the law being antiquated by God in the Great Sacrifice of the atonement, to say that He in that act (or, according to others, Christ in that act) spoiled and triumphed over the infernal potentates ? n Lastly, there is another very strong objection. If it was only by putting off His human body on the Cross that He could put off from Himself the powers of evil that beset His humanity, this would not be victory, but retreat. 3. Alford observes, and apparently with justice, that the terms Apxeu and i(owr(ai are general ; and a specific reference to " infernal
open to serious if not fatal objections. means to divest of clothing, it requires powers in the light of a clothing of God
powers"
is
context, as in Eph.
not to be assumed unless it is determined by the " Now the words have occurred before vi. 12.
260

where Christ
is
[H. 16
in this very passage, ver. 10,
exalted as kcôA^
&pxfc * at itovo-ias, and it is hardly possible to avoid connecting our present expression with that, seeing that in rac &PXa* cal ras ifrwria* the articles seem to contain a manifest reference to it" Taking the words, then, in a more general sense, he explains the whole by reference to passages in which the Law is said to have been administered by angels, GaL iii. 19, Staraycls &* AyyiXjuw : Heb. ii. 2, b &l ayytkmv AaAi/tfcU Adyos Acts vii. 53, Compare Jos. Ant. ikdfiT rov vofjMy etc Siaroyds dyycAwv. XV. 5. 3, 17/iwv tol fcoXXurra twv Soy/iartav, kcu to, do-u&rara iw iv t(hs vd/xois 8i* dyycXoiv irapa tov 0cov pa$6vT<ovf "they were the promulgators of the xip6yp<ul>ov to Sdy/Kaariv." That writing was first wiped out, and then nailed to the Cross abrogated and suspended there. " Thus God dn-cc8va-aro to? tyxas teal to* i(owrias divested Himself of, put off from Himself, that iyycXcuv Siaray^, manifesting Himself henceforward without a veil in the 1 It is no objection to this " that thus exalted Person of Jesus.' more prominence would be given to angelic agency in the law than was really the fact ; the answer is, that the prominence which is given is owing to the errors of the false teachers, who had evidently associated the Jewish observances in some way with the worship of n angels. With reference to this, the statement of Theodoret quoted below on ver. 18 is important, tow? ayycXovs o-ifiw urqyowrot &d Tovrwv \.vovts Sc&mtAu tov v6fwv. " St. Paul's argument will
iracnp
:
go only to this, that whatever part the angelic powers may have had, or be supposed to have had in the previous dispensation, all such interposition was now at an end, that dispensation itself 11 being once for all antiquated and put away. Ritschl's view is
Eilicott's objection to this view is that it rests on the assumption that the verse refers to 0cd?, not Xpurros. But, in fact, it only assumes that the contrary is not proved. The principal objection to taking 6 cd? as the subject throughout is the supposed difficulty or impossibility of interpreting aVcKoWd/xcvos, #c.t.A., of God the Father. It is not logical to adopt this argument, and then to reject an interpretation which meets this difficulty on the ground that the subject must be 6 Xptordc.
similar.
4. The foregoing interpretations assume that dircjcoWapcvoc, being in the middle voice, must mean " stripping from himself. 1' But the middle often only expresses a personal interest, and the cognate verb dveoWofwfla occurs in Plato, Rep. p. 612 A (quoted by Meyer), in the sense " nudavimus." Nor does the fact that in iii. 9 the same verb in the same voice means " strip from oneself,"
decide the question as to its meaning here. As Bp. Perowne observes (apud Moule), there are classical parallels to such a varying use of the middle in neighbouring contexts. See Soph. A/ax, 245, 647. It is allowable, therefore, to take the verb here in the sense
H.
15]
SPOILING OF PRINCIPALITIES
AND POWERS
26l
"spoil, disarm," the middle conveying the idea "sibi exspoliare." This sense, accordingly, is adopted by Bengel, De Wette, Meyer, Moule, Eadie, Soden. Most of these, however, understand as in Some of the (i) (2) by the opxa * * a * #wu the infernal powers. First, that if these objections made to (2) apply to this view also. were intended we should expect this to be specified ; and, secondly, What had the disthat it does not harmonise with the context arming of the infernal powers to do with the abolition of the Soyfiara ? or what connexion had the assertion of it with the warning against the fyn/cWa twv dyycW ? Meyer's explanation is that it was in sin that these powers had their strength in their hostility to God, and "the power of sin was in the Law" (1 Cor. xv. 56) hence with the law " the infernal power stands and falls." Surely a faulty argument The abolition of the law does not do away with sin. Moule, again, says, " He who is King of all orders of good angels is here presented as Conqueror of their evil counterpart." This supposes that ras ap\a^ fcr.X., here are actually contrasted with vamp apxy*i *.T.A. f in ver. 10, of which contrast there is no indication. 5. V. Soden adopts the translation " spoiled," ue. " disarmed," but adopts a view of apx<" Kai iowruu similar to that of Alford and Ritschl, viz. that they are the angelic powers in so far as they represent the Law, and thereby have power over men, and doubly over those who do not fulfil it, that is (since ideally the law was valid for all men), not Jews only, but Gentiles also (Gal iv. 3, 9, The fact, which in ver. 14 was iii. 19; 1 Cor. viiL 5 sqq.). described on the side of men, is now carried out in its significance for the angelic powers who represented those ooyfuxro, having in view the fact that the Soyfiar^v taught in Colossae, which the apostle is combating, was ultimately a dpqvKua rwv dyycAuv
(18, 23).
equally tenable whether the subject is taken to be and it seems less open to objection than the former. The remark quoted above from Alford as to the prominence given to angelic action is equally applicable to this interpre-
This view
is
6 0cos or 6 Xpurrd?,
tation.
word, which, perhaps, is also to be read in 1 and Lightfoot also quotes a passage from Acta Fault et Petri% in which it occurs, Iv* ny fiovov &iro ti}s rov 2ifUi'os dirdn^ tfrvyuxriv, aXXa teal ficiy/xarurovo-iv avroK, where it is explained in the context as " to proclaim." 1 he substantive Sciyftario/ioc occurs in the Rosetta inscription. The idea involved in kiyiiaTfciv is only that of public exhibition, not of
i&iyfidTi<Tv.
A rare
Matt L
19,
f*rj
OiXitiv avrrjv ficiy/iarioru
shame
1
(TrapaSety/xart^ctv).
Iv irappijaif.
The
rendering " openly," as in
AV. and
retained
The Text. Rec.

;
in Polyb. etc.
there has TapaduyfiaTlccu,* word which frequently occurs also Num. xxv. 4; Isa. iv. 17; Jer. xiiL 22; El. xxviii. 17.
262
in
[IL 15
RV., is approved by Bengel, De Wette, Olsh., Wordsworth, and Eadie. $17/100-19, irdvrw bpwvrwv, Theoph., Alford would preserve the idea of "openness of speech," "deckling and revealing by the Cross that there is none other but Christ the Head vaarp apxfc " Openness of speech," however, seems unsuitable #cat covo-tas." to the connexion. As to the sense " openly, publicly," it seems to
vii. 4, where cv irapprp-la, cTvai is opposed to and XL 54, 'Iô-ovs ouiccri irapprqvlq. ircpicmrct cv tow 'IovocuW aXXa ain}\$v ixtlOcv, k.t.X. In St Paul, however, it always means " with boldness, or confidence " (an idea which is also present in the places cited), and so it is understood here by
be supported by John
cv Kpinrnf iroiciv,
Meyer, Ellicott, Lightfoot, Soderu Hofmann connects cv irapoiprtp in the sense " openly " with Ipw/i/faxras, which, however, already
contains that idea.
avrovs, masc. of the &p\ai teal c&, because 0piaji0coaas adrous. they are treated as personal existences, not with any reference to their possible designation as dyyc'Aovs. OpuLfiPcvo-a*;, " triumphing over them," or, rather, "leading them This is the usual signification of in triumph," as in 2 Cor. ii 14. the verb with accus. of person. E.g. Plut Tfies. et Rom* 4, /fa<riAcL$ c0pia/j./?cv<rc xal i/yc/ioVa?. Wetstein, on Cor. /.&, gives other examples. Bengel, De Wette, a/., take this as = eV Xpt<rr<gL iw afiTî But Christ is not mentioned in ver. 14. Most commentators understand it as = cv <rravp. To this Soden objects that aravpos in ver. 14 is only a secondary idea; and he refers the pronoun to In doing away with the xLPyPaov God triumphed Xctp6ypa<f>ov. over those who administered it (Meyer, ed. 4 (1874), does not mention this view, which is attributed to him by ElHcott (1857) and Eadie (1855).) The Vulgate has "in semetipso," and so RV. margin. reads cV cavr<ji. The metaphor is a very bold one whether understood of God or of Christ If aur<3 refers to aravp^, the words would certainly be more suitable to Christ, and in that case the antithesis between Opianfitvcras and iv oTavpQ would be extremely striking. "The violence of the metaphor," says Lightfoot, "is its justification. The paradox of the Crucifixion is thus placed in the strongest light triumph in helplessness and glory in shame. The convict's gibbet is the victor's car." No doubt this way of putting the thought is very striking ; but if this had been the meaning of the apostle, might we not expect that he would express it more distinctly, instead of almost hiding it, as we may say, in an unemphatic pronoun with an ambiguous preposition cv ? We might have expected some such expression, for instance, as <rravpu>$cl? ctfpiap/fcvo-c. But, in fact, the contrast suggested would be quite irrelevant to the apostle's purpose, and the more striking it is the
IL
16]
PRACTICAL APPLICATION
263
less likely is
it that he would introduce it in this way as a sidethought, thus tending to draw the reader's attention from the argu-
ment
For
cv
avry Origen
(in several places) reads <v

ii.
ry (vha.
So
ligno cruris," says : " licet in aliis exemplaribus habeatur triumphans in semettpsot sed apud Graecos habetur in ligno" 16-28. Practical application of these principles to the ascetic precepts and the angel-worship of the false teachers* With their precepts about eating and drinking and observance of days, they
also his translator (int.
416),
commenting on "in
possession
would have you attach yourselves to the shadow, whereas you are in of the reality. The cult of angels is inculcated as a becoming exercise of humility ; but this is a false humility, and is really the
fruit of carnal pride9 vaunting itself in the pretended knowledge of these angelic powers, and is derogatory to Christ the Head, on whom
and growth. " Therefore," seeing that the law of ordinances has been done away with, " let not any one," not fu^Scc?, but fuj to, as in ver. 8, pointing to some definite persons ; Kptvcna, not "condemn," but "judge you, take you to task." Compare Rom. xiv. 3, 4 ; 1 Cor. x. 29. " In eating or in drinking," i.e. in the cV pp&rci <} iv ir&rci. matter of eating or drinking. Compare Rom. xiv. 17, ov yap hrrw /ipakric in St Paul is always fl fiaa-iXtta rov cov fipuxrts /cat wt?. the action of eating (1 Cor. viiL 4; 2 Cor. ix. 10), not the thing eaten (/?pw/*a, 1 Cor. vi. 13, viiL 8, x. 3, al.\ Heb. ix. 10). In Homer, indeed, /fyxwris is used for "food" (U. L 210, a/.); and so in St John iv. 32 ; cf. 34, vi 27, 55. There is a similar difference
alone
we dependfor
spiritual health
16. Mf) o$v Tts 6fia$ Kpivirw.
between
irdo-is
and
iro/xa.
contained no prohibition respecting drinks except in special cases, namely, those of Nazirite vows and of priests ministering in the tabernacle (Num. vi 3; Lev. x. 9). There was also a prohibition of drinking from vessels rendered unclean by the dead bodies of unclean animals (Lev. xL 34). We know, however, that the Essenes, the prototypes of the Colossian false teachers, went far beyond the Mosaic code, abstaining wholly from wine and from animal food (see Lightfoot, p. 86). Lightfoot reads ical rarcc, with B, Syr-Pesh. Boh., TertulL ^ Origen. Tertullian, however, reads et in all four places, therefore his evidence in this instance is valueless. The Syriac also has "and" in three of the four places, "or" only in the second; its evidence also, therefore, counts for nothing. The apostle might have written k*L not fj, because fipuxns and iroc-i? naturally belong together (but so, indeed, do the following three), and the occurrence of y in the other three clauses would easily lead a copyist to substitute it here. But the authority for koi is too slight
The Mosaic Law
264
Compare
f[

I
[H. 17
Cor.
where A, some
cV plpci,
iii.
xi. 27, i<r$lg rov &prov ij irivr) ro ironjptov, K.T.A., cursives, Syr-Pesh. Boh. Eth., Origen, al. have koL
"in the matter of"; compare

;
iv
Tovnp to /"pet,
often denotes the class or category, especially with verbs like ridivat, as in Plato, Rep. L 348 E, cv open}? Kal <ro<f>ia<; TiBrp pipci rrjv a&iKiav. Chrys. and Theodoret take it here in the sense "part," ov yap $9 Trdvra Kardxov rk irporcpa, Chrys. loprijg t\ Kou|iTjKtas ^ ctoPP<twk. The words specify the annual, monthly, and weekly celebrations ; cf. Gal. iv. 10. o-a/?/?ara, though plural, means "a Sabbath day," being, in fact, a Greek transliteration of the Aramaic, and from its form mistaken
2 Cor.
10, ix. 3
/Lw'pos
rjfitpav ijrts
Thus Josephus distinctly, Ant. iii. 10. 1, ifi&ofirjv L i. i. Compare Hor. Sat. adPfiaTa KoAcmu; also i. 9. 69, "hodie tricesima Sabbata." See on Lk. iv. 31. B G have the spelling wo/i^vta?, and so the Vulg. 17* A con? o*kiA tvv )k\\6vn}vt to 8c* ffwfio Xpurrou. <r*u does not mean an outline or sketch (as understood by Calvin and many others), which would be o-Kuaypa<f>Ca or <rKi.aypd<f>rjfia, and is excluded by the antithesis of o-w/ta. sketch would be contrasted with the complete picture. It is simply " shadow," having in itself no substance, but indicating the existence of a body which casts the shadow, o-w/ta accordingly retains its proper signification " body," not "substance." Compare Philo, De Con/. Zing. p. 434,
for
plural.
lift.
to, fikv prjra rtav xpi^r/Aoiv <TKia%
rwas
oxravcl
<r<ofuiTv ttvai
opposed
Josephus, Bell. Jud. ii. 2. 5, <TKiav ain/o-o/icvos /?ao*iA.cias, fjs rfpiracrtv caimp to awfui. Compare also Heb. x. 1, o~*ciav c^cw 6 vo/ao? r&v fitXXovrwv dyaOtov, ovk avrrjv rrpr ctKova rwv irpay/xctTwv: ib. viii. 5, ovcip Aarpcvown tw iwovpavtuv. The figure expresses both the unsubstantially and But the thought found in the supersession of the Mosaic ritual. Meyer and it by some Greek commentators, and adopted by Lightfoot, that the shadow comes before the substance (17 a-Kta irporpixi rov o-w/iaros), is not contained in the text ; for it is no part of the idea of a shadow that it goes before the body, or is Theodoret presses the figure still further: vpo~ seen before it \ap.fidvci 1) o-Kia to atofia 6.vCa-\ovro^ tov <o>rdV a>s ctvai aiaav fikv rov voftov auyfia 8c rrjv \dpiv, ^<o? 8c rov fccnroTrpf Xpiorov. Meyer again presses the tense of cori so far as to infer that rk /icAAovra are not the already then existing Christian relations, the " Kaivrj fhaO-qKT] (rather to, rrj<: Kaivrjs SiaOrjKTî) but belong " wholly atwv neWuv. The present, however, is sufficiently exto the plained by the remark of Davenant (apud Ellicott), "loquitur de illis ut considerantur in sud naturd, abstractae a circumstantiis temporis." Yet it may be used in its temporal sense quite as well For the observance of these as the presents in Heb. x. 1. sqq.
t
to Ta vÔTa>ra aXrfOcia wpdypxtra.
ZX. 18]
PRACTICAL APPLICATION
265
times and seasons had not ceased, although that of which they were the shadow had come. Meyer's interpretation would vitiate the apostle's reasoning, for if ra fUXXovra were still wholly future, the <TKid would not be superseded, and the observances referred to would retain their importance. V. Soden regards <ru>/ta as denoting ra /icAAoyra in their con-' Crete organisation, i.e. the Church (cf. ver. 19). too Xptorou, i.e. belongs to Christ; the blessings typified by these observances are found in Him. The article is prefixed in most mss., Chrys. K* C P 17 a/., Oec; omitted in Chrysostom mentions a strange punctuation: ol /iky oZv etc. rovro OTtfowr to 8c <ro/ta, Xpurrov, 17 8i akrjOtia cVi Xptcrrov
KDGKL
ytyovcv" ol
8c,
to"
8c*
<rS)fia
Xpurrov fu/8s
v/ta?
#caTa/?pa/?cvera),
Tovrcorw, ctn/pca^cVcd. So Augustine, Ep. 59, "Corpus autem Christi nemo vos convincat," confessing riiat he does not
understand
(apparently
rare word.
it
it
This connexion
is
also supported
by
ABP
also) a/. f Eth.
Kara/?pa/?cvciv is an extremely Jerome reckoned it as one of St Paul's Ciiicisms, but has been found in two other places. First in Demosth. Mid. (not as used by the orator, but in a statement of witnesses),
18. MtjScls ftpag KaraPpaPeucTu.
iirurrdptOa Srparcnya viro MctoYov Karaftpaficv0cvra koX irapa irdrra ra 8ucata arifJuoOivTou StratO had been arbitrator in a cause between Demosthenes and Meidias, and as the latter did not appear, gave judgment against him. On this account Meidias contrived to have Strato condemned to arc/ua. The other passage quoted in the Lexicons and commentators is Speaking of the assistance in Eustathius on Horn. II. A. 402 sqq. which Briareus, son of Poseidon, rendered to Zeus, when Poseidon, with two other deities, conspired against him, Eustathius observes that as amongst men sons often differ from their fathers, ovtw ov8c 6 fivOucbs B/>iapcci>? <f>i\a <f>povcl t<3 irarpi, aXXa. Karafipaficvi irpolc'/ACvos to airrov, a>$ <f>a(riv 01 vaXaiot^ rov <f>wriKov OtcrpLOv StVatov. Here the word clearly means "decides, or takes part, against," and from the words ws âcriv ol iraAaiot, may be regarded as almost a definition of the word by a scholar to whom it was familiar. It will be observed that neither in this passage nor in the former is there any question of a prize. This meaning of the verb is confirmed by its etymology. The simple verb /Jpa^cvW, which, of course, signifies primarily " to act as ppafSfvs or umpire," awarding the prize, fipafolov (1 Cor. ix 24 Phil. iiL 14), seems, in all the examples that we have of its use, to have dropped all reference to a prize, and to mean only "to For instance, Isocr. Areop. p. 144 B, cV tq k\tjp<mti ttjv decide." Tvxqv Ppa/3wriv. The same writer, Phil, c 29, uses ra vapd (twos) Ppaficv6iuva, to express regulations made by a person* In
L544 Tavrrjv rrfv alrlav
266
[ZX.
18
Demosthenes, again, OL p. 36, 7, to iw 5AAcdv 8iWa fipafiefow is "to arbitrate or decide on the rights of others." So p. 1231, 11, of the unequal treatment of rich and poor, rovrov tov rpovov vpy ravra fipaftwovrwv. Tosephus, Ant. ix. I. I, has irapcjccXcvcraro
:
/il/ScVO? OVTUtS
ppaficvtiv pcwras /3pafJUi to Btlov.
&
WS TOV OUCOIOV TTpOVOOVfLCVOVS KpiVtW TOIS airao-t to tow ; and Ant. xiv. 9. 5, <2>? ci
S)(koi*
jccu
17
voXc/aov
Compare
also Col.
iii.
15,
tipfpri
tov
Xpurrov fipafiwvru) cv rats #rap67cus v/twv. In accordance with this meaning of /Jpa/fcvctv, Karafip. would mean "to decide or give judgment against " ; and it is so interpreted by Photius {apm Oec.) and Hesychius, Karairpu'crw. So also the Syriac Versions. This gives an excellent sense here, the phrase being stronger than the similar one in ver. 16, jcpiverw. It is adopted instead of #caTa#cpivcra>, probably in order to suggest the idea of assumption of authority. This is the interpretation adopted by Reiche, BengePs interBleek, Field (Otium Norvicense\ and many others. pretation is " ne quis brabeutae potestatem usurpans, atque adeo abutens, vos currentes moderetur, perperamque praescribat quid sequi quid fugere debeatis praemium accepturi " ; and similarly a-Lapide and Beza. This seems to put too much into the word The Greek commentators, who seem to have had no independent knowledge of the word, take it to be equivalent to irapa/fya/faW, which occurs in Polybius and Plutarch, and means to assign the to prize unfairly. Zonaras (<?/. Suicer) says Kara/Spa/SciW avro. /xrj viKfja-avra diow tov /?pa/?ctov, aXX rcpviop,vov dXXov crrc<l>avovo'$a.t. \cyei 6 airooroXas KaraMeyer, adopting this view, supposes the apostle f3papV<r6ai. to mean " willing (tfoW) to bring it about that the prize may be withheld from you and given to him and his." As their obtaining the prize would not involve others losing it, this would imply
:
km
folly as well as malice.
The meaning assigned by recent commentators generally, viz. " rob or beguile you of your prize," *.*. " cause you to lose your reward by defeat," or the like, does not agree either with Suidas or Zonaras, and it increases the difficulty of 6cW. It results from the desire to retain a reference to a fipapttov, which, as we have seen, is not generally retained in the simple verb, nor, as far as we can judge, in the compound.
These words are very difficult (including Augustine, Estius, Olshausen, Bleek, Lightfoot) explain them as a Hebraism in imitation of the Hebrew "2 pen, " taking delight in," or rather (since the Hebrew verb does not mean flcXciv, but cv8o#ceiv), of the occasional
lv
TcnriKo+po<ruKt].
MW
Many commentators
xv.
Septuagint rendering of that expression (1 Sam. xviii. 22 ; 2 Sam* 26 ; 1 Kings, x. 9 ; 2 Chron. ix. 8 ; Ps. cxi 1, cxlvil 10). In 1 Chron. xxviiL 4, the same words occur as a rendering
IL
18]
FALSE HUMILITY OF ANGEL WORSHIP

Lightfoot also quotes from the Test
7) \ffvxyi
267
of "3
].,
nn.
X1L
Patr. Asher
lav ofo
OiXjf kv tcakw.
The main objection to this, and it is a fatal one, is that St Paul does not use Hebraisms which so violate Greek grammar. The fact of such an expression occurring in the Sept., especially in Sam. Kings and Chron., is not a reason for attributing it to St Paul Indeed, except in Ps. cxlvii. 10, the object in the Sept is always a person. In the Apocrypha, Ic'Xciv cv is not found. The expression Btkifras vofiov, 1 Mace iv. 42, is not parallel. Nor is this interpretation relevant to the context, for it is not the pleasure which the false teacher takes in his humility, etc, that is in
question.
Alford connects with the participle, translating "of purpose," and comparing 2 Pet iii. 5, Xav6dvi yap avrovs rovro Oikovras. He also quotes Theophylact as apparently supporting this view, dtkovaiv v/ta Karafipafitvtiv Sta rairctvo^p. But both this comment and the passage in 2 Pet are equally, if not more, applicable to the following interpretation. Other expositors connect Qikw with the following words, supplying Kara/?pa/?cvciv. So Theodoret : rovro roCvw owepovktvov ckcivoi ytVcor&u, Tairivo<t>po<rvvy SrjOcv KXpr]fj.voi (compare Theoph. above) ; and so Photius, Buttmann, Eadie, Ellicott, and many others. Theodoret, indeed, presses tfcXwv too far; the purpose of the false teachers was not directly, but indirectly hostile to the Coiossians. RV. marg. has: "of his own mere will, by humility," etc This agrees nearly with Beza : " hoc munus sibi a nullo tributum M exercens, Reiche, Tittmann, at It also corresponds well with idcXodprjaKtCa below, and, on the whole, appears to deserve the preference. The construction (which is the same as Alford's) is simpler grammatically than that last mentioned, and the sense obtained is more satisfactory. Luther (followed by Ewald and Tyndale) gives a similar sense to 0eW, but connects it with
Ififiarcvwv.
0eW
Lightfoot quotes two conjectural emendations, viz. O&yw, suggested by Leclerc (ad lac.) and Bentley (Crit, Sacr. p. 59), and more plausibly i\0<av, suggested by Toup (Emend, in Sutdam, u- P ^3)' e can hardly suppose, however, that if iXOwv had stood here originally it could be corrupted into Sikw. Hort conjectures iv ctfcAorawcivo^poowfl. The last word is actually employed by Basil, and compounds of c&Xo- were used freely when St Paul wrote. Compare Aug. Ep. 149, 27 "Sic enim et vulgo dicitur qui divitem affectat thelodives, et qui sapientem thelosapiens, et cetera hujusmodi. Ergo et hie tfulokumilisy quod plenius dicitur thelon humilis, id est volens humUist quod 1 intelligitur 'volens videri humilis, 'affectans humilitatem."9
268
[H. 18
TairetKO+poou^ ical Optjcntcia twv &,yyk<av. rav, is elsewhere (except ver. 23) treated as a virtue, and so in this Ep. Hi. 12. But there is false as well as true humility, and here it is defined by the following fynyoTceia t&v ayy., which again is illustrated by it What is referred to, then, is the humility which finds expression in the worship of angels, and this worship again is that which is Perhaps the false teachers made inspired by this false humility. much of humility in inculcating this 0/npr#cia, chiefly from false notions as to the power of the angels ; but partly, it may be, from an idea that God Himself was too high and unapproachable for men, who must therefore use the mediation of angels. This is the explanation given by Theodoret: Xeyovre? is aoparo? 6 twv
o\o)v
0cd?,
x.
av<t>iKTo<;
re
/cat
axaraAiprro?,
kgll
irpcxnpcci
Sta
rwv
dyycXaiv ttjv Btlav cu/icvctav irpayiuLTV<r$ai.
Compare Augustine,
Con/,
42,
"Quem
fuit
biendum mihi neque per se
ad angelos?
invenirem qui me reconciliaret tibi? AmMulti conantes ad te redire,
ipsos valentes, sicut audio, tentaverunt haec, et inciderunt in desiderium curiosarum visionum, et digni habiti sunt Zonaras, again, in commenting on the 35th Canon illusionibus." of the Council of Laodicaea, says there was an ancient heresy of some who said that we should not call on Christ for, help or access to God, but on the angels, s rdxa rov rov Xparrbv
hriKaX.t<r6at
irpos
ra
clprjfLcva
/icifoyos
orros rr}s rjfiertpas dtas
So also Chrysostom and Theophylact This latter view, however, would place Christ high above the angels, and therefore cannot have been that of the Colossians, who re(Suicer,
i.
p.
45).
quired to be taught the superiority of Christ. Nor can Theodoret's explanation be adopted without hesitation, since there is nothing in the context about the mediation of angels or of Christ; nor does this view of rawuvo^p. agree with the following & c<0pa*<v, #c.t.X. Theodoret, however, throws light on the passage when he States that 01 t<2 vd/A<p <rvvrjyopovvTS Kal ro\s dyycAous crc/kir crirois ctcnyyowTo, Sia rovnav Acyoircs Sc8ocr#cu rov vofiov, for which reason, he adds, the Council at Laodicaea forbade praying to angels Kal fJ^XP1 $* TO * v^fy v*n//Ma rov dytov MiâÂ trap cicciVot?
:
Kal roi9 o/xdpot? cotiv
l&iv.
& lupaKCK
<|&PaTcuciK or
&
|if|
4SpcuccK
IpParctW.
lârtvtiv
is
properly to step or stand on (as an ifiPar/js). So with gen. Soph. Hence "to dwell in," Eurip. Oed. Tyr. 845, ififiareuciv irarpt'o?. Heracl. 875, K\r\povs h* fyi/JaTcucrco-fo \Bov6s: and similarly of a god, Soph. Oed. Col. 671, 6 /?a#cxoira? 1 to "haunt" a place. Atowo-o? ififiaTVi. It also means to "enter upon" a country, " to invade." Later, it is found in a figurative sense of " entering So Philo, De Plant. Noe. ii. 19, into" a subject of inquiry. "As some of those who open up wells often fail to find the hrurnjfiutv jcai SOUght-for water," ourto? oi irpocrwrcpci) \u>povvT$
iw
: :
H.
18]
269
bntrXiov J/i/farcvoKTCf aurais, ASwarown tov tcXovs Ariôwat : and SO perhaps 2 Mace. ii. 30, to p*v i/A/SarciW #cat vpl iran-aw irotur$OA Xoyov . . . ry ti}s urropia? apyrry^V â^V K^ (but RV.
11
to occupy the ground").
Athanas. on
0ca>ptip.
Matt xL
27,
rokfirfpov
i/xfiarcvtiv riyv airtpworfrov ^wrtv.
Nemes.
Zte iVa/. Horn, (p. 64,
ed. Matth.), ovpavbv l/i/?arcvci tq

If
" dwelling in," as V. marg. or " poring over, busying himself with," or with the idea of pride in his possession, " making parade with." "What he hath seen" is then to be understood
we read
cwpaiccv the sense will be,
" taking his stand upon," as
R V.
ironically, his "visions."
Hilgenfeld (quoted by Meyer) understands the words to mean, without irony, " taking his stand on the ground of sense " ; but against this is the perfect cwpaKcv as well as the expressive ififtaTvu>v. Besides, the error in question was based on a supposed knowledge of angels. The Rec. Text fitf iupaiccv conveys the idea, " intruding into But, things which he hath not seen," At first sight this is easier. as Alford remarks, it " would be a strange and incongruous expression for one who was advocating a religion of faith whose very charter is /uueaptoe ol p.rj ioovtc? koX ircirwrrcvjcorcs to blame a man or a teacher for & /jltj cwpaiccv Ifi/farcvcii'." We should rather expect it to be regarded as a fault in a teacher that he took his stand in the realm of sight If, however, the negative was written from the apostle's point of view, we should expect the objective ov\ to be used ; if, on the other hand, it is from the false teacher's point of view, "intruding" would not be a suitable translation, but " searching," or the like.
As
to the reading, the evidence is as follows
Without the negative

1 MSS.: 17 28 67 codd. mentioned by Jerome {Ep. 121 aa Alg. i. p. 880) ; codd. mentioned by Augustine {Ep. 149, ii. p. 514). Versions: Old Latin dem Boh. Arab. (Leipz.) Eth. Fathers, etc.: Tertullian (con/. Marc. v. 19, "ex visionibus angelids," and apparently Marcion himself also) ; Origen once (in the Latin translation* In Cant. iii. p. 63, "in his quae videt"). Also, cant. Cels. i. p. 583 (Greek, the editions prior to De la Rue) ; Lucifer's De non conv. c. hour. p. 782, Migne ; Ambrosiaster (explaining thus : "inflantur motum pervidentes stellarum, quasangelos vocat." In the citation of the text editions differ). Pseudo- Augustine, Quaest. ex N. T. ii. 62, iii. App. p. 156. With the negative fill and all cursives except those above mentioned. MSS. : Versions : Old Latin f g Vulg. Goth. Syr. (both) Arm. Fathers, etc.: Origen once (in the Latin transl. In Rom. ix. 42, iv. p. Also, con/. Celsum, as above (Greek as edited by De la Rue, who, 665). however, says nothing about MSS., but remarks : " at Gelenius legit." A i&paxcp, Tisch.); Ambrose. In Ps. 118, Exp. 20 (i. p. 1222), Pelagius, Chrysostom, Theodore Mops., Theodoret, John Dam*
K*ABD*
CKLP
Wthtf,rCD*G.
270
[H. 18
It will be observed that no MS. older than the ninth century reads /mJ, and with the exception of C none older than the seventh has a negative in either form. It is open to question whether 06, inserted by way of correction in M and D, was derived from MS. authority or was merely a conjecture. The " deliberate preference " of Jerome and Augustine cannot rightly be reckoned as "evidence" in favour of trfj. The words of the former are: " Quae nee ipse vidit qui vos superare desiderat, sive vidit (utrumque enim habetur in Graeco)." The words of Augustine are " Quae non vidit inculcares,
:
vel sicut cjuidam codices habent, quae vidit inculcares." Their evidence amounts simply to this, that some of the MSS. they consulted or were acquainted with had the negative and some had not As to their judgment, that is a different thing. Jerome's " utrumque habetur in Graeco " expresses none. Even Augustine's do not contain any direct or decided expression of preference, nor does he say anything as to the respective value of the MSS.
which he quotes. The reading which omits the negative is preferred by Tisch. Treg. WH. Burgon thinks (see post), Alford, Meyer, Soden, Lightfoot (but see post), the Rec Text " cannot seriously be suspected of error " {Revision Revised,
P-356). Lightfoot concludes from a review of the evidence that the negative is a later insertion ; but as the combination '.'invading what he has seen" is so hard and incongruous as to be hardly possible, he suspects a corruption of the text prior to all existing authorities ; and in this Hort and Taylor agree with him. He conjectures aldpa (or tepa) Kevffjfiarevwv, "raised: aloft, treading on empty air," the existing text, aewpaxere/t/Saretwi', being "explained partly by an attempt to correct the form itapa into alwpq,, or conversely* an<^ partly by the perplexity of transcribers when confronted with such unusual words." KVpfia.Ttfct9 does not itself occur, but Kcve/ifiaTcu' is not infrequent. It is used by Plutarch, Basil, and others in a figurative sense, e.g. Basil, L p. 135, rbw 0V9 . . . fivpla TXarqOtvra teal ro\\d KCwenPaHparra ; i. p. 596, The other word, alwpa, which is used in a <ro0 di /til KPCfi(kLTlT<a 6 rods. literal sense, either of the instrument for suspending or of the position of suspension, as the floating of a boat, the balancing on a rope, the poising of a bird, etc., is used figuratively by Philo, De Somn. ii. 6 (i. p. 665), (nrorv^tovfiewot far' aUhpat Qpcv&p xal JceroQ 0wn/uirof ; Quod Deus Jmmut. 36 (L p. 298), Cxrnp 4r* altbpas tivoi if/evdovi koX dftcfkUov dAip foptur&ai
Kara kcvov /Salrarra. Dr. C. Taylor {Journal of Philology, 1876, xiii. 130), followed by Westcott and Hort, prefers iipa Kere/x/tareriw. There is an earlier conjecture which involves even less change, or none, in the text, viz. a iutpa (or a iwpaKey is better than &pa, and the emendation only lu)pa.Kv) Kereftfiarctw. supposes the common error of omission of a repeated syllable. Ingenious, however, as these conjectures are, it does not seem necessary to depart from the (Blass thinks KeycfifiaTcOuy fairly certain, Gram. p. 67. text of the best MSS.
*Ikt} is by some comm. connected with the cUtj tiwoupepo?. preceding clause (De W., Conybeare, a/.) in the sense "rashly, But ctw} in St. Paul precedes the words it qualifies uselessly." (Rom. xiii. 4; 1 Cor. xv. 2 ; Gal. iv. n), except Gal. iiL 4, where Its usual there is a special reason for placing it after IwdOm. meaning in St. Paul is " to no purpose, fruitlessly n ; and so it is understood here by v. Soden; but it equally admits the other sense, "without reason," which it has in Matt v. 22, and this is more suitable to ^voW/a<vos. The false teachers were without reason puffed up with the idea of their superior knowledge. There
; :
XL
is
10]
271
<ixnov-
a sharp irony in the contrast between rairctvo^xxrwi? and

to 8c ye
<f>wriovfivos
/acvos.
fjitv
yap l<TKrpnovToy
dirt tow koos
t$ ravivo<f>pooijyg bfdvriov ovk Ioti' rrpr rov &k rv<f>ov rb irdOos <xpi/?u>f irc/xeVcciiro,
Theodoret
7% aapitos afiroo. "By the mind of his flesh." as a natural faculty is in itself indifferent, and may be under the influence either of adpt or irvcvpn ; cf. Rom. L 28, xii. 2 ; 1 Tim. vi. 5; Tit L 15, and Rom. viL 25; 1 Cor. xiv. 14, 15. The expression here used, "mind of, or belonging to, the flesh" The false (possessive genitive), seems to continue the irony. teachers claimed a higher intelligence, perhaps a deeper spiritual insight; whereas the apostle declares that it was carnal, not spiritual Compare Rev. ii. 24, " which know not the deep tilings of Satan, as they say," where "as they say" refers to "deep things," which are then bitterly characterised as " of Satan." " And not holding fast" For this sense of 19. (col od Kparw. xparctv with accus., compare Mark vii. 3, 4, 8, kd. ttjv irapdSocriv Acts ii. 24, ovk rjv oWaTov Kparctcr&u avrov vw* avrov: iii. II, KparovvTO? Se avrov rbv Hirpov #cat *l&awrjv: 2 Thess. ii. 15; Rev. Frequently, however, it means ii i, 13, 14, 15, 25, iiL ii, vii. 1. " to seize " ; but that sense is inapplicable here. o3. The relative is masculine, because it is a r\\ KcâXVJK, person that is referred to as the Head; not because Xpt<rrov is implied; cf. ver. 15. Meyer, however, followed by Eadie, regards ov as neuter, referring to the Head, not personally, but in an abstract To understand it as referring to sense "from which source." Christ, Eadie thinks, would destroy the harmony of the figure. The objection does not apply to the explanation just given. It is to be noted that D* Syr-Harcl Arm. add X/xotoV. i( is causal, "from whom as the source," and the relative clause expresses the perverseness of the ov k/kmw, k.t.A., as much as to say " whereas from this," eta For the meaning of these words 81a t&v Aûr ical wrhlauw. see note on Eph. iv. 16. owoW/ao? means in general any of the connecting bands in the body, whether ligaments proper, or tendons, or muscles ; but in its special sense is limited to the " ligaments," But in as appears from a passage in Galen quoted by Lightfoot a passage like the present this technical sense is not to be pressed the purpose of the figure is to express the complete dependence of the Church as a whole, and of all its members as parts of an organised body, on Christ directly, angels not intervening.
The row
stX PT)Y ^P<K0K KC" <jA0i0at<5jiKOK.

owapfw\xyyovfjivov
/cat ovftfiifiatpfLcvov.
Compare Eph.
iv.
16,
There, the main purpose was to insist on the vital cohesion and union of the parts with each other ; here, on dependence on the Head. Here as there the present participles are to be noted; the process is a continuing
272
one.
iiri
[IL 20
For imxop. cf. 2 Cor. ix. 10; GaL iii. 5; 2 Pet L 5, 11. brixop. seems to be indicates rather direction than intensity, the function of the d<a4 <rufi0i/?. of the orWWfioi. For the passive of iirixop., compare Polyb. iv. 77. 2, iroAAcus afoppuiU Ik <f>\krtu:
K*Xoprjyr]fJivo<:.
Arist
Pol.
iv.
1,
crcu/ia
KaXXurra
ire^vicos
#cal
K*XOprjyr)fivov.
aff{ei tV au{v)<riv, cognate accusative; not a periphrasis, nor added " to give force to the meaning of the verb," but because it was desired to define the nature of the aZfan* as tov cov, a growth having its root in God, belonging to God; cf.i Cor. iii. 6, 6 <8k6s yvfavw. In Eph. iv. 16 also "growth" is the result aimed at ; but there, in accordance with the difference in the points of view just referred to, it is to <rG>fia itself which t^v avipriv row
Lightfoot remarks iroicmu efc oucoSofirfV iavrov iv &ya,7rg. the discoveries of modern physiology have invested the apostle's language with far greater distinctness and force than it can have worn to his own contemporaries. " The volition communicated from the brain to the limbs, the sensations of the extremities telegraphed back to the brain, the absolute mutual sympathy between the head and the members, the instantaneous all these add paralysis ensuing on the interruption of continuity, He quotes several to the completeness and life of the image." very interesting passages from Hippocrates, Galen, and others as illustrating ancient speculation on the subject, and he reminds us that one of the apostle's most intimate companions at this time It may be remarked, was "the beloved physician" (iv. 14). however, that the apostle is speaking of supply and binding together rather than of volition and sensation (unless we adopt Meyer's view of <tyat (see on Eph.)). Theophylact also remarks awo lip K<f>a\rp: iraxra aur6rj<ns #cal traxra kCvtj&ls. "If ye died with Christ" (not 20. cl &h6<pctc <ri)v Xpurrw. They had died with Christ in baptism, "if ye be dead," as AV.). w. 11, 12, and had risen again with Him. Comp. Jn. vi. 49, 58. dird t>v otoixciuk tou K&rpoii. aTToOvrp-KiLv diro occurs here only The dative is used Rom. vi. 2 ; GaL ii. 19, Here in the N.T. the preposition is more suitable, inasmuch as what is referred to is liberation from a dominating power. ti 6s tKTs iv ic6<rfMp, not merely as being in the world, but Their true " life was hid with Christ living your life in the world. To live in the world would be cTwu iv rjj aapxi in God," iii. 3. Probably best taken with RV. as middle. &oy|iaTile<r6c. "Why do ye subject yourselves (or allow yourselves to be subjected) to ordinances ? " The middle, indeed, implies some blame But they were not compelled by force, so that to the readers. even if the verb be understood as passive, it is implied that they submitted to the yoke.
o*a>/taro$
that
S.
21]
FALSE WISDOM OF THE ASCETIC PRECEPTS

tioyiuLrtfaur
273
The verb
meaning "to
occurs frequently in Sept and Apocr.,
Elsewhere it is used of the precepts issue a decree." of philosophers. In the active it takes the indirect object in the dative, 2 Mace x. 8, which therefore may become the subject of
the passive.
ofo of the Rec Text has little support, of uncials only ry before TLpurrQ scarcely any,
K* and
81.
ftaTo,
"jri)
"Handle
Examples of the Mytyj) |it|& yciJa^ p}&2 GiYTls" n im-co-flat is stronger not, neither taste, nor touch.
than liyyavco', suggesting rather "taking hold " touching." Thus Themist Paraphr. Arist 94,
KpC<ri9 iarl kox avTLkrj\f/t^
of
17
than merely rww c*i>k <tyi)
rav dvyydvovros.
Compare Xen. Cyrop.
3.
5,
X^pa
bpu, Srav fiev tov aprov ctyfl, cfe ovScv rip diro^ruytcvov, orav oc tovtcdv tivos OCyrp cu0i* diroKaSatptt rrjv
o-c,
on
<f>dvai,
^ n *he N.T. comp. Matt. viiL 3, r^/aro \ipa cis to xcipd/tajcrpa. avrov 6 'Iiprovs : 1% 1 5, ts xlP* avrifc John xx. 1 7, /A17 /ton ain-ov (often in the Gospel) : 1 Cor. viL 1, ywatxos ftrj airra'0ai : 2 Cor. Otyydvtw occurs in N.T. only here vi. 17, faaOdprov fir) ainwtfe. and Heb. xi. 28, xii. 20 (a quotation). Hence there is a climax of prohibitions, reversed in the AV., following perhaps (through Tyndale) the Latin, which has " tangere " for ainwAu, and " conCoverdale renders well (except as to the trectare" for 0iyco\ order), " as when they say, touch not this, taste not that, handle not that" There were such prohibitions in the Mosaic law, and these were, doubtless, not only re-enacted, but exaggerated by the Colossian false teachers, as they had been by the Jewish. The form of the Rabbinical precepts was just that here given. The Essenes also abstained from the use of wine, oil, and animal food,
defiled hands. suggested a special object for each of the three verbs ; for example, for 0^77 (yvyauco*?), which others have supplied to 0tyZP* This form of asceticism, which also was practised by the Essenes, is referred to in 1 Tim. iv. 3, ko\v6Viw ya/iiv ; but it is not suggested by anything in the present context, and would hardly be referred to so obscurely. Other suggestions have been offered which do not deserve mention, since it is clear that St Paul is only citing typical forms of prohibition. For the same reason we must not suppose the prohibitions limited to food. It b a singular illustration of the asceticism of a later date, that some Latin commentators (Ambrose, Hilary, Pelagius) regarded these prohibitions as the apostle's own. In the words of Augustine, who argues against this view: "tanquam praeceptum putatur apostoli, nescio quid tangere, gustare, attaminare, prohibentis" (EpisU adx., ii. p. 412). Jerome gives the correct interpretation, which he illustrates from the Talmud, L 84.
and would not touch food prepared by
Some commentators have
18
274
[XL 22
22. (& ton ir&vra cU f&opav rg diroxrf<rci.) The clause is " Which things (the objects which it is forbidden parenthetical to touch) are all (destined) for corruption in their consumption." For ctwu ei5 compare Acts viii. 20, city cfe dirwActav : 2 Pet ii. 12,
ycycwip/icVa
. cfe aAaxrtv #cal <f>0opdv. . <f>0opd has its proper sense of decomposition, referring to the physical dissolution of such things in their natural use ; dirox/w^ri* meaning " using up," "consumption." The thought is that these things which are merely material, as is shown by their dissolution in the ordinary course of nature, have in themselves no moral or spiritual effect
The argument
is strikingly
:
similar to that in
afaSpwva cV/?dAAcrcu
that the apostle
1
so
much
so, indeed, that
had
this discourse in his
Matt xv. 17, cfc we might suppose mind. Compare also
where the same consideration is differently applied; and ib. viii. 8, where the principle is expressed, " Meat will not commend us to God ; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse nor if we eat, are we the better." This is the view taken by the Greek commentators as well as by most moderns. Theodoret ov o-kottcitc o>? /xovt/xov tovtcdv ov8cV cis Konpov yap airavra says
Cor.
vi.
12,
fierafiaXXerat
and Oecumenius
<f>0op.
yap,
<f>rjoriv9
fcro/ccirat iv t<2
d^cSpcwt.
Other interpretations are as follow the antecedent of a is taken to be the precepts referred to " which hoypjara all by their use tend to (everlasting) destruction." For this So Ambrose, Augustine, Corn, a Lapide, a/. sense of <f>0opa\ see Gal vi. 8. But awoxpw1* never means simply "use," but "using up," "consumption"; 4ior, indeed, would the simple XW S be suitable in the sense of " observance," njpiprtt. Moreover, the addition rjj avoxprp* would, on this view, be quite
:
First,
superfluous.
held by some that these words are those of the repeated in irony by St Paul : "omnia haec (vetita) usu suo perniciem afferunt" Or, again Thirdly, the words, similarly interpreted, are connected with " Which things tend to the following : koto, to, hrrdXpara, k.t.X.
Secondly,
it is
false teachers,
destruction";
doctrinis
*sciL
si
hac de re judicium
ex doctorum Judaicorum praeceptis et feratur." So Kypke, De Wette, and
other*.
meaning of
Against both these interpretations the objection from the u using up" diro;(pi/<ris holds good, for it was not the of these things, but their simple use, that these teachers con-
demned
To be Kara t& trrdXpaTa Kai Si&aoxaXtas tup Mp&irvv. connected with w. 20, 21. The article covers both nouns, which belong to the same category, and is generic. These Soy/iara were of human invention, not founded on the Divine commands and
II.
88]
FALSE WISDOM OF THE ASCETIC PRECEPTS
275
teaching.
ftara,
&oWaXia? is a term of wider application than bnrdX"precepts and in general teachings." The expression is
taken from
Isa. xxix. 13, fidrrjv 8c o-c/Sovrai fie, Sioao-Koircc ivrdX.fiara avOpuiruiv koi oVSao-KaXta?. Compare Matt xv. 9; Mark vii. 7. " which are 28. Anrrf iartv \6yov pc? fxorra croîag. anva
such things as," or " which kind of things." The position of iariv seems to forbid our separating it from i\ovTa, as Lightfoot and Bengel connects it with others do, joining it with owe iv ripy.
irpos ir\r](rfiovrjvJ k.t.X.
\6yor <ro+(as = "the repute of wisdom." For this sense of Xoyov Ixctv, compare Plato, Epinomis^ p. 987 B, 6 /xcv yap coktôoo? &nrcpos re &f auros *A<f>po&iTrp ttvax a-yihov fyci Xoyov Herod, v. 66, KXeto-lcKi/? . . . oWcp 817 X'yov c;(i t^v trvOir/y avairtlcrau This repute is explained by the professed basing of these precepts on <f>i\ocro<f>ia, ver. 8. The addition of pev suggests at once that this repute was not well founded The contrasted! character which we expect to be introduced with 8e appears to* be replaced by the negative characteristic owe h ripy, k.t.X. which,, of course, implies the absence of true wisdom, but is not opposed I6t\o0p. k.t.X. This use of /tec without: to k&yov cro</>ia5, but to the Sc clause following is frequent See Jelf, 766 ; Winer, 63. 2. e. iv indicating on what this repute for wisdom iv c6cXo6pt)<rKcia. rests. The substantive tfcXolpipriccta is not found elsewhere (except in eccles. writers), but the verb iOiXoBprprKtiv is explained by Suidas, co7a OtkrffULTi dfoiv to Sokovv. Epiphanius explains the name of the Pharisees 81a to fafxapurfLtvov* ttvax avrov? dwo t&v aXXwv b\a rrpr 0\oTrpur<ro6pr}<rKiav trap avrot? vcvofuvfianyv (Hacr. i. 1 6). Similar: compounds, however, are frequent in Greek, as IfcXoSovXcia (Plato Conv. 184 C ; Rep. 562 D) ; 0cXoirpocvoc, Thuc. iii. 70. 2, where, the Schol. explains 6\<f>* iavrov ycroficvos kcu firj kcXcvo-0ci$, k.t.X.. The meaning of iOtkoOp. is therefore clear; it is " self-imposed!
:
1
inrnv ?x0Kra ^ not quite * ne same as *x<l > tne former marks that the character of the precepts is such that a Xo'yo? o-o^t'a? belongs to them. Dem. 31. 11, ovM Xoyov to wpayp ?xoy âT^
worship."
what the false teachers called so ; see Lightfoot supposes the force of iOtko. to be carried on but this seems unnecessary. " And unsparing treatment of the body." ical d+cifti^ orifjuiTos. The substantive dêtoYa occurs in the definition of IXcv^cpia in [Plato] Def. 412 D, d<cioYa *nj<rci owriW The xpijo-ci *" verb A^ciSciv /3iov occurs in Thuc ii. 43 ; d^. a-tafidrwv in Lys. Or. Fart. 25; cf. (tyciows ixptavro rots idiots <rfxacriv cte Tyv icourrpt aomjpiav, Diod. Sic. xiii. 60. frequent Latin rendering here was " vexatio," but Vulg. has " ad non parcendum." Augustine
teal Taireiro+oo<ruT), viz.
ver. 18.
&
mentions both (Ep. 149).
276

m
G
[H. 88
at.
d e f g Vulg. Syr-Harcl. , Hil. al. After Taweurofpoatirii, rod wok is added in Origen (Latin transl. iv. 665), HiL koI before &4*i81q is omitted by B Lachmann and Lightfoot bracket it, the latter saying it should probably be omitted, &<p*i8lg. being then taken as an instrumental dative. L and most mss. tyetftfo is the spelling in
B*C D G
odic lv np% vpos Xti<rjio^K <rapKo$. These words are among the most difficult in the Epistle. The Greek commentators understand iv rifiji rivt of the honour to be paid to the body (suggested by the preceding d^ctoYp cw/taToc), and irAi^r/*. tj}s a. of the satisfaction of bodily appetites.
nn
This view has been adopted by many
modem
expositors,
including Corn, a Lapide, Calvin, De Wette, and Scholefield. Estius expresses it thus : " Sentit apostolus sapientiam illam aut praecepta talia esse, per quae corpori debitus honor, pertinens ad expletionem, It is a decisive objeci. e. justam refectionem carnis, subtrahatur." tion to this interpretation that it assigns an impossible sense to irAipr/M>vi7, which is never used in the sense of moderate satisfaction, but always in that of " repletion " or " excessive indulgence." It is expressly so defined by Galen, Op. xv. p. 113 (quoted by Lightfoot), who says that not only physicians but the other Greeks apply the word fiaXXov itok . . . reus vircp/9oAat? rtfr (rvfxfiTpov Here, where it would stand in contrast to the asceticism vocrorrfro^. Moreof the false teachers, it would be particularly inappropriate. over, this view supposes adpi to be used in an indifferent sense as equivalent to <rutfiat and that in a context in which it has just occurred with an ethical meaning. The change from o-w/Aaroc to oupicos can be explained only by the latter having an ethical meaning here as in ver. 18. Lightfoot (followed by RV. and Moule) adopts and ably defends the interpretation given by Conybeare (Life and Epistles of St. Paul), and before him by Sumner, viz. " yet not really of any value to remedy indulgence of the flesh," or more literally as RV. 11 but are not of any value against the indulgence of the flesh." St Paul " allows that this irXrprfLovrj is the great evil to be checked, but he will not admit that the remedies prescribed have any . .
substantial
and
lasting efficacy."
First, as to
But
this interpretation is
linguistic point of view.
open to serious objection from the the meaning assigned to irpos.
It is, no doubt, often convenient to translate it " against " ; but the idea of hostility or opposition is not in the preposition itself, which only means " with a view to," " looking to," etc, but in the words with which it is joined, as in Acts vi. 1, xxiv. 19 ; Eph. vi. 11. Lightfoot shows also that it is frequently used by Aris' otle, and especially by Galen, after words denoting utility, etc, to introduce the object, to check or prevent which the thing is to be employed. Thus Aristotle, Hist An. iii. 21, o-v/t^c/Kt wpos ras 8ta#x*as: De
XL 28] FALSE WISDOM OF THE ASCETIC PRECEPTS

Respir.
8,
277
r^v <f>0opdvi Galen, De Compos. 420, rov SoVros aura wpbs dAunrc/u'as âAaxpoKrcis p. 476, Ppa^yrdrrjy l\ovri Svvafitv a* irpos to vpoKifivov <rufnrrw/ta and so very frequently. This use is very parallel (as Lightfoot indeed observes) to that of the English "for." Compare "good
ftorfld wpos ravnqv
xii.
Medic, Opp.
p.
for a cold, for a

to," the object
hurt"
preposition seems to be " with reference being a state or condition. On the other hand, if the object is a word signifying action or the production of an effect, " for " and irpos still signifying "with reference to " can only suggest " with a view to (producing)." For example, " good for cutting, good for the satisfaction of thirst" Hence it seems to follow that unless wXtfo-fiov^ be taken in the sense of "a state of repletion," which would be unsuitable, vpos n irAiprfu>n7F could only mean " so as to produce v\. Secondly, as to the sense of iv rififj nvi, "of real value." Lightfoot, after Wetstein, quotes Lucian, De Merc. Cond. 1 7, ra Kaiva rwv xnrooTjfidrwv iv rtiij) rivl koX cVt/tcActigL cortV, and Hom. II. * L 3* 9* * V rW7 *- T-* But in these and similar passages " estimation," not objectively " real value," and cv riitfl Ti/xiJ means clmi is to be "in esteem," not to be "of value." Hence also the use of Ti/iij in the sense of "price." Sometimes the two ideas, "estimation" and "value," may approximate, as, indeed, our word " value " is sometimes incorrectly used as " valuation." But here the interpretation in question supposes rifirj to mean " real value," as opposed to mere " estimation." No instance has been produced which would justify such a supposition. Thirdly, as to ov . . . nvL This can hardly mean " not any " t means "aliquis," not in the sense of "none," i.e. ovc/ua. " ullus " (except in poetry). So here the Latin : " in honore
Here the sense of the
&
aliquo."
The
ovk contradicts the combination cV npfj nvL, implying that

:
on the other side this had been said or assumed Thus the words would mean " not for some (supposed) 1-1/117." These last two objections are fatal to ail interpretations which require ovk cv rtfifj rwi to be understood as " not of any real value." Eadie regards Aayov to nvl as participial, and joins mv with vpbs wA., which is very harsh.
Aiford connects
all
irpos 7X17074. k.t.A.
with 8oyitartccr0c, treating
between as parenthetical, and understanding ovk cv rifiy rwl as = " not in any real honour done to the body." " Why are ye suffering yourselves to be thus dogmatised, and all for the satisfaction of the flesh," for the following out of a SioWkoAao, the ground of which is in the <frwnovaOai viro rov vobs rifc aapKos, ver. 1 8. Then follow most naturally the exhortations of the next chapter, w. 2, 5. To the objection that the antithesis presented by owe cv rejig rwi is
278
\WL 1,
fi
thus not to lOtXoOp. k.t.X. but merely to afaihtq. o-cu/uiros, he replies that " if the apostle wished to bring out a negative antithesis to .these last words only, he could hardly do so without repeating the preposition, the sense of which is carried on to <tyci&'a." This înterpretation yields a very appropriate sense, and gives tivi its jproper sense. But it is difficult to admit so long a parenthesis separating the verb from its qualification. It is not analogous to mother Pauline parentheses. It remains that we take ripy in the sense of " honour," and irpoi vk. tj}s o-o/wco? as = " for the full satisfaction of the flesh." The words suggest that the observation of such precepts was supposed to bring honour, and in contradicting this St Paul with abrupt and sharp irony declares that the only honour would be such as satisfied the carnal nature, and that their boasted (tyct&a <ra>paro? was in very truth irkrfo-fiovri rip o-o/mcoc and this striking contrast explains the adoption of vkrfafiovfj in this unusual sense. This is the view adopted by Soden and (nearly) by Meyer, Ellicott and Barry take a similar view of the connexion, but understand ri/Aij as " value." 1-4L Ye must have a loftier aim ; ye have risen with Christ and your life is hid with Christ in God. Seek therefore those things that are above where He is9 seated at God's right hand. Not " if ye be risen,* AV., 1. ei ovv <rvvr)yip(h)T t& Xpurrfi.
I
m.
'
viz. at the definite point of time when they became Christians, and were in baptism symbolically buried and raised again with Him, ch. ii. 12. The death as a death from Ta aroi;(ia tov tcoaftov is mentioned in ii. 20. ct does not express .a doubt, but, as in ii. 20, the ground of an inference. tA &w Ii)tcitc, k.t.X. There is no longer any direct reference to the precepts of the false teachers (as if ra eVi rfc yifo ver. 2, were ra irtpi fipufidriov koI r)(Lpa>vt Theoph.). These have been cast aside as concerning only those living in the world, and the apostle Your thoughts should be on things rises into a higher region. above, on spiritual things, and the precepts you have to follow concern moral conduct Compare "treasure in heaven," Matt "vi 20 ; to fipafitlov rip ava> kA.io-co>?, Phil. iii. 14. cotiv is not the copula: "where oS 6 Xpurnfc l<rnvt k.t.X. Christ is, seated," etc " Par enim illuc tendere studia curasque membrorum, ubi jam versator caput," Erasm. 2. tA ku +portiTc. "Set your mind on the things above," "RV., an advance on Op-ciTc. In the AV. "set your affection,*' etc. The word " affection " was doubtless intended to bear the The sense of " affectus," " tendency or bias of the mind." The Vulgate has "sapite," bishops' Bible had "affections." " savour," as Wyclif renders. We have the opposite state of mind
but "if ye were raised,"
iin
PhiL
in. 19, oi
ra cVtycia
<f>povovvr<;.
Compare Rom.
viii. 5.
XXL
8, 4]
SET YOUR MINDS ON THINGS ABOVE

Not "ye
2/9
1
are dead," as AV., but "ye died' Conybeare, indeed, urges that the associated *c*pvirrai shows that the aorist is here used for the perfect; but this is erroneous. The aorist expresses what occurred at a particular moment in the past, while the perfect KCfcpwmu expresses the resulting and now existing state. Nor does the nature of the verb Onfa-Kto preclude a rigorous translation, as even Ellicott suggests. True, in ordinary narrative, iircflayc, "died," implies, though it does not express, " is dead " ; but not so when there is reference to a possible afterlife. Accordingly, Plato in the Phaedo never confounds Ovrjo-Ktiv or dwo$aviv with T&vdvau For example, p. 72 C, ci AvoOvrjo-Koi fuv vdvra, 3cra rov (fjv luraXa/foc, cVei&7 8k diroâvoc, /icVoi cv rovnp T<p ax^fjuan rk rcfocwra kou pr) vakiv AvaftutXTKOiTO $p ov voXXrj avdyKTj rcXcvnuKTO vdvra T0vay<u *ai pr)&cv tfjv ; to T$vdv<u having been defined in 71 as the opposite of to f^v, while faoOvyrKtiv was the opposite of ayafim<rKaiai9 ib. . So Homer, II. uV. 365, uses riOvaOi with critical accuracy, not "die," but "lie dead." Here "are dead" would contradict vwrftipQipu They died, indeed, but at the same time rose again, and that to a life spiritual and heavenly. They were, indeed, vocpoi rjj d/iapru^ but wvrcs t<3
8. dircOrfvcTt ydp.
0coj,
Rom.
lri)
vi.
11.
life,
up&y, your true
not merely your resurrection

ii.
life.
4-6. K^Kpuimu. "Neque Christum neque Christianos novit mundus ; ac ne Christiani quidem plane seipsos," BengeL Compare Rom. ii. 29, 6 cv tw kovhtw 'Iovoato?. ûAp. 4. 6 Xpioros +apcpt6fl, 4 "When Christ shall be manifested, who is our life," not " shall be manifested in the character of our life," as Bengel and Eadie. Compare 6 l\wy v vlov x {wtJk, 1 John v. 12. He is Himself the essence of the life; cf. Gal. ii 20; Phil. i. 21. The absence of 8c or #cu makes the expression more striking and vivid. Bengel observes on this " Sermo absolutus lectorem totum . . . repentina luce percellit" For the transition to the first person cf. ii. 13. ifnvtpovaOai is used here with propriety instead of AvokoXwtco&u, which does not so distinctly imply actual present existence.
They
are seated cV tois ctrovpawW, Eph.
totc koA dpcis

iii.
<h>k <i6t$
+a>c0u<tyaco4c iv h6n.
ofiotoi
Compare
2,
otSa/ACV
on
av
<f>avtp<t>(tfj
avrtp c<7O/ic0a,
19, rrjv a7roKdXv\f/iv rtav viuiv rov cov dircicocxcrat : Rom. viii. 17, Iva kcu (n/v8oa<r0u>/icv, and 18, rrpr ooap awoKa\v<f>&r}vai ct 17/iac
viii.
1 John and Rom. and On iv
oop,
fiiWowrav
For the reading ; t/tfo

Origen.
4/iAr in
is
read in
B D*
K L most mss., Syr.

for iipO*
(both), Boh.,
KCD*GP 17 47,
likely to
Vulg. Goth. Ann. Eth.
tpfr was very
be substituted
on account of the
pre-
280
[UL
Tischendorf and Tregelles prefer ceeding iftQw and the following ifuts. bfiQr ; WH. and Lightfoot Ii/a&v ; and so Weiss.
A* destroyed^ as well the more subtle sins of temper 6-1L 5/Vw as the grosser ones of appetite. u Make dead, therefore." o5k. 5.
&
NcKfxfoaTc As ye died, and your true life is hidden, carry out this death to the world, and kill whatever is carnal in you. to \Ukr\ to irl ti}s Y*is. Meyer understands by piky the literal members, hand, foot, eye, etc (Matt. v. 29), of course, taking the verb in an ethical sense. But this would be too strong a figure, and is not sufficiently supported by the passage in St Matt, where the precept is not, as here, unqualified and absolute, and the verbs, moreover, are used in as literal a sense as the substantives. The whole precept there is symbolical, but the words have their
makes the more natural to explain the word by the idea of the " old man," "In the <rujia tt}s oia/McoV And this is suggested by the added qualification to. cVl The members spoken of are those which belong to the tiJs y^s. body as the instrument of the carnal mind. With the whole precept compare Oavarovre: Rom. viii. 13, ci & TTvtvfAan ra? v-pa&is rov cu/taro? Oavarovrt fijo-cre and Gal. V. 24,
natural sense.
Besides, this interpretation of
difficult
/icA.17
connexion with the following more
It is
o2
rov Xpurrov cm^vfuais*
ttjv <ra/Mca
tcrravpwrav crw rocs vaOyfiaai
teal
rats
Usually taken in apposition with /icXi?, either were themselves called /icAiy, " membra quibus vetus homo, L e. ratio ac voluntas hominis depravata perinde utitur ac corpus membris," Beza; "naturam nostram quasi massam ex diversis vitiis conflatam imaginatur," Calvin ; or indirectly, j>. " when I say v#cp<*raTe ra /icA.17, I mean vcxpwaarc Tropviav9 ic.r.A., of which to. piky are instruments." On either view the apposition of the instruments and the activities is extremely Severianus (followed by many modems) regards sin as the harsh. body of which the special sins enumerated are the members <rwpa jcaAct r^v d/ioprtav, fc teal ra fitki) KarapiOfit ; but this only evades the difficulty. Alford regards the construction as an instance of that form of the double accusative where the first denotes the whole, the second a part of it, as in irolov o-c ro? <f>vyev ZpKos 080V1W, an explanation which does not touch the difficulty. Braune thinks the body in question is the body of the Church. Lightfoot proposes to meet the difficulty by placing a colon Then wopvciav, ic.r.A,, will be viewed as prospective iter ytfu accusatives, which should be governed directly by some such word as ain>0ca0c : but several dependent clauses interpose, and the last of these suggests incidentally a contrast between the past and the present, the thought of which predominating in the apostle's mind
iroprciar, ilt.X.
directly, as if xopvcio, etc.,
m. 6]
iraira.
SINS
TO BE DESTROYED
28
leads to a recasting of the sentence, vw\ 8c airo0co-0c #cai fyms to. Lightfoot illustrates this dislocation of the construction occasioned by the contrast of vori and vw by reference to i. 22, vwi 8c diroJcanyAAayifrc (or cwro#canyAAacv) : and 26, vw 8c <f>avptaOrj:
#ca/
iL 1-5, #ccu v/xas . . cv ats irorl . . . eV ols 6 82 Qco'? . . #cal ovTas 17/ias . <nrvc<ooiroirj<Tv. This construction has been characterised as "extremely difficult " ; but the difficulty is only of the same kind as that in the
.
and to Eph.
irorc
...
passages cited.
After Into the Rec. Text adds ty^r, with Vulg. Goth, other versions, Chrys. a/. It is omitted by K B C* 17 67* 71, Clem.
K*A(?DGHKLP most mss.,

a/.
any passive emotion. irdOo is used by Thus, Aristotle distinguishes these three cv t$ i/nixfi ytvojiwa ird&rj, wdOrj he defines as oh cVenu ffovi) tj \vm}9 including ccts, 8w</ms. iirtOvfUa, optf, etc But it is specially used of a violent emotion or
classical
writers of
passion." In the other two places in which the word occurs in St Paul it is defined by a genitive (irdOrj drtfu'a?, Rom. L 26 ; cv wdBti C7ri0iy>uas, x Thess. iv. 5). Here the enumeration appears to proceed from the more special to the more general, so that vdtios
Still less the vd&rj probably means not specially " lustfulness. drt/u'as of Rom. L 26, an interpretation which has no linguistic justification, but generally " passion," as RV. This includes all evil longings, and so is einOujuav kojc^v. wider than iraflos. i8ov, ycvucw? to vav cTirc' irdvra yap itrdhfiia cVi0u/ua in the N.T. has a kclktj, fiaarKavia, opyq, Awn/, Chrys. wide sense ; cf. John viii. 44 ; hence the necessity for Kaxyv.
11
koX
t?jk irXcovcîav, k.t.X.
j|ns cVtik. 6. oY ft.
See on Eph. iv. 19, v. 5. "Seeing it is." This is undoubtedly the correct reading, but a few
authorities
rf}s
(C* D* G) read oY o. After cov, ?PX<TCU 4 Vyf) to cou. a7ri$UKi as in Eph. v. 6.
Rec
adds
rl rovs vtovs
The evidence for the addition is extremely strong, as they are contained in manuscripts except B. In D, however, tne words are written in a smaller character at the end of the line, an indication apparently that they were not present in its archetype. Of Versions the Sahidic omits them, and the Roman ed. of the Ethiopia Clement 294 (mss.) and 531 quotes from veKpuxrare to GeoG: but it would be unsafe to infer that his copy did not contain the addition ; he may well have stopped short of it as not necessary for his purpose. Ambrosiaster omits them in his text, but his comment appears to recognise them. With these exceptions the addition is supported by all MSS. , Versions, and Fathers. Its genuineness would be certain were it not that the same words occur in the parallel passage Eph. v. 6. It is very credible that they were added from that place at a very early period. On the other hand, they
all
282
[m.
7,
seem required to complete the sense ; certainly without them the thought is not the same as in the parallel in Eph. In the one case the words are a general warning as to the consequence of these sins ; in the other a lesson is drawn from the example of others. The ical i>fUii t ver. 7, seems to assume a previous mention of the unbelieving Gentiles. The evidence in favour of the omission being so slight, it may be considered equally probable that the omission was accidental. The words are omitted by Tischendorf, Tregelles, WH., Alford, Weiss, and bracketed by T*rhm. They are retained by Ellicott, Meyer, RV. (om. marg.).
7. cV oTs ical df&cfc ircpicirar^craTc' ttotc, ctc XfJTC iv tovto4.
The
reading tovtois is certain, being that of D* a/, avrois is L, most mss., Chrys. Theodoret, aL read in D If the doubtful words in ver. 6 are omitted, ofe and rovroi? are of necessity both neuter, and refer to the vices mentioned. If the words are retained, the pronouns may be both neuter, or the first masculine and the second neuter, or the first neuter, and the second masculine. To the last view, which is that of Huther and others, it may be objected, that rjv iv is never used in the N.T. ot living amongst persons, while it is frequently used with things, cV So afULprufr Rom. vi 2 ; iv Koo-fiw, ii. 20 ; iv ort/wa, Phil. L 22. Meyer, De Wette, in classical writers, cV dpcrp, iv ^1X00-0^, etc. Braune, and Ellicott take ofc as masc, tovtois neuter. In favour of this seems to be the partial parallel, Eph. ii 2, 3, ct rots vioU
GK
KABC
rrfe Airci0ia
cV
oh
ical
rjfJLtls
irdVrcs &v<rrpd<l>rjfiiv ware,
parallel
which
Ellicott
thinks leaves
no room
for.
doubt
Of
course,
7rcpurarc?v
would then be understood to denote not mere outward living amongst, but participation in a course of life. Alford and Lightfoot argue that, independently of the rejection of the doubtful words, it is better to take oU as neuter, since irf>tiraTLv iv is most commonly used of things, not of persons, especially in this and the companion Epistle, iv. 5, Eph. iL 2, 10, In 2 Thess. iii. 11, indeed, we have rtva* irtptwarovviv. 17, v. 2. tcl5 cv vfuv draicra* but the addition of dram-arc there makes the expression not quite parallel So Eph. iL 3 Lightfoot regards as not parallel on account of the addition cV rat? cWv/u'atf rfc o-aptcos rffiwv. But this addition does not affect the connexion of
cV
:
iv ols dvcorp.
air. is
And
Alford admits that,
if
the clause cVi
r.
vi
r.
retained, this parallel goes far to decide the matter. ore cIijtc iv TouTots, i.e. before ye died to the world ; c#}rc being
in contrast with dwcfldVcrc.

ircpcciran^rarc, aorist,
The change of tense is to be observed, because denoting single acts, c#}tc expressing
For the difference
in sense,
the containing state.

V.
compare GaL
25, ci u/icv TTvcv/jtan, irvcv/ian fcal otoi;(u>/acv. "Vivere et ambulare inter se differunt, quemadmodum potentia et actus ; vivere
praecedit,
ambulare sequitur," Calvin.
ical v/acis, " ye also," 8. vw\ hi, in contrast to the wore above, As in the former verse they were a& well as other Christians.
1EL 9]
SINS TO BE
DESTROYED
283
compared with the heathen society from which they had separated, so here with the Christian society which they had joined. Holtzmann strangely supposes the kou to refer to the Christians addressed in Eph. ii. 22. tA wdin-o, "all of them," everything that belongs to the old man. The asyndeton is thus less harsh than if t& toktu be understood to be only retrospective (as Meyer, a/.). &v6far6c, " put ye away."
6fyV, k-t.X.
See on Eph.
iv.
31.
aurxpoXoyia occurs in the N.T. here only. The connexion here shows that it means "abusive" rather than "filthy" language. It denotes the form in which the injurious fiXwrfatua finds expression. Chrysostom takes it in the sense of "obscene talk " (which he calls oxnfm iropytias), and so many moderns ; but the sins of uncleanness have been dealt within ver. 5, and the other substantives here regard want of charity. The word is used by Polybius, viii. 13. 8, in this sense of "abusive language," 17 ica-rot rdv aUrxpokoytai cf. xxxL 10. 4. The verb has a similar meaning in Plato, Rep, iii. p. 395 , KaKrjyopovrrds re *cai xayupSowras dXAiJXovs kolL aurxpoAoyowTas. Compare alcrxpa jfrca, Horn.
^W
//. y.
V**, not "proceeding from," but dependent and belonging to both /3Aa<r<. and aurxp. 0. pi) tcuftctfe els dXXyjXous. " Do not lie towards one another." In Hist Sus. 55 we cfe does not express hostility, but direction. have tycwoi cfc rip crtavrov i/^x^v but this is clearly not parallel direxSuadfiCKoi, k.t.\. This may be understood either as
38. toO or^fMiTof
on
&ir6$<r0,
"putting off," "exuentes," Vulg., so as to form part of the exhortation, or "seeing that ye have put off." The former view is adopted by Olshausen, De Wette, etc. Lightfoot also defends it, observing (1) that though both ideas are found in St. Paul, the imperative is the more usual ; cf. Rom. xiii 1 2 ; Eph. vL 1 1, with ver. 14 ; 1 Thess. v. 8, vqâytcv cYSucra/Acvot, #c.t.X. ; (2) that in the parallel, Eph. iv. 24, the " putting on " is imperative ; and (3) that the participles here are followed by an imperative, ver. 1 2. Grammatically, there is no difficulty in thus understanding the aorist participle as synchronous with the present imperative. The aorist would, in fact, express a thing done once for all, and would be better represented in Latin by an ablative absolute than by a present participle. Nevertheless, the other view (adopted by
Theodoret, and amongst moderns by Meyer, Alford, Ellicott), according to which the participles contain the motive for the preceding exhortation (from dirofarfc), seems the more probable, first, because in what precedes there is nothing to correspond with cYucra/4cvo<, as the Christian graces are not referred to; secondly, because ver. 11 does not fit in so well with an exhorta-
284
[m. lO
tion as with an
ver. 12 is
argument ; and thirdly, because the imperative in On <ta-c8v<rdyLcvoi see ii. n, 15. introduced by oCv. ror vaXaidr avBpiawov. See Eph. iv. 22. 10. itai cV8uad^K04 tok viov. In the parallel, Eph. iv. 24, it is iv&vo-acrQcu rov kcuvov avOp. ycos, unlike koivo*, only expresses newness in point of time, but the idea of Kaurirrp is supplied by the
participle.
the result of hSwracrBai tov vtov avO. is that Christ is to cV irdo-iv, and as the apostle speaks elsewhere of Xpurrov cVoucnurtfcu, Gal. iil 27, Rom. xiii. 14, some commentators infer that the vc'os <Lv$p. here is Christ ; and hence, again, that 6 va\atb* avOp. is Adam, whose image men bear, 1 Cor. xv. 49. Ignatius, Eph. 20, has the expression cis rbv Kaivov avOpuirov 'Iiprow Xpurrov. If this had been the thought in St Paul's mind here, he would probably have expressed it more distinctly. It seems better, then, to rest satisfied with the interpretation of the " new man " as " the regenerate man formed after Christ" The ultimate meaning is the
As
vdyra
kcl\
same.
* because although " created once for all {KrurOhm^ Eph. iv. 24), its growth and development Compare 2 Cor. iv. 16, 6 3o*> rjfiw are continually going on.
dyaacaivoJfMKoy, present participle,
[dvfyxtMros]
AvaKaivovTcn,
fjpipq.
koX
$ip.ptfa
and the
iraAatov avOp. rov
</>0ci/>o/acvov,
Eph.
iv.
22.
suggest the restoration of the original state,

that
opposite, rov dva does not but the contrast to
The
which has
lately existed.
draxatvow
&vaKaiv%u).
is
is
not used by Greek authors, nor by the Sept, but

substantive dvaxatvoxris
The
(Rom.
xiL 2
Tit
iiL
5)
also peculiar to the

cis
N.T.
:
" Unto thorough knowledge." Meyer connects iviyvwnv. with the following words " unto a knowledge which accords with the image of God," i.e. which is in accordance with the Divine knowledge. But the Divine knowledge would hardly be set forth in this general way as an ideal to be attained ; we should expect It is more some limitation to moral or spiritual knowledge. natural to connect #car cucova with dvaxatv. and to supply the object of riyvoxris from the context, viz. the knowledge of God and the mystery of the gospel ; cf. i. 9, Iva vkrjpwOrjrt r^v itriyvwnv rov IcAif* /laros avroxij and ii. 2, cfc itriyvuHriv rov pvorrjptovy k.t.X. kut ciKora, k.t.X. To be connected with avaKaiv ovptvov as above. An allusion to Gen. L 26, 28. tou KTiaarros afrrdV. 6 icrura? according to Chrysostom, aL is Christ ; but 6 ktmtc? is always God, and so here especially, where the passage in Genesis is alluded to. avrov is the new man, not rbv
this
faOpunrov generally.
ruri5,
2 Cor. v.
Christ, refers
Compare KrurB&ra in Eph. iv. 24, and tccuvvf w Soden, who interprets the *| new man of avrov to tov dvaKcuvov/icvov. As Christ is the cfair
17.
IH. 11]
SINS
TO BE DESTROYED
285
of God, 2 Cor. iv. 4, Col. L 15, so Christians, when Christ is formed in them, become renewed after the image of God Olshausen presses the designation of Christ as the uk&v of God,
and accordingly interprets, " after the pattern of Him who is the Image of God." But this does not agree with the allusion to
Genesis. It is true the Alexandrian school interpreted the expression in Genesis of the Logos, but only in a sense borrowed from the Platonic doctrine of ideas as to Apxtruwoy irapaScty/ux, iSc'a t8cW 6 0cov Xoyos : and this conception is certainly not in the spirit of St PauL Besides, the absence of the definite article before thcova obliges us to take tear cucdva in its natural sense as " after the likeness of." Those commentators who understand Kara @coV, Eph. iv. 24, as =*" after the likeness of," of course understand the expression here as only a more precise definition. Compare Gal. iiL 28. This hi is not, as 11. faov ofc lit. formerly used to be stated, a contraction of own, although it is often used in that sense ; it is simply the longer form of the preposition fr, with ion understood, as in vdpa, am. The fact that iv is used with it in 1 Cor. vi. 5 is not inconsistent with this, since the word came to be looked upon as equivalent to frm. That passage, however, shows that we are not to press here the idea of "impossibility," owe 3k iv vpiv ovcis crowds. The word here simply states the objective fact. The distinctions enumerated as abolished are first those of secondly, of legal or ceremonial birth, involving national privileges standing (which might be gained by adoption) ; thirdly, those of culture ; and fourthly, of social caste. "eXXijk xal 'louoato*. In contrast with *Iov&uo?, "EAAiyv means simply " Gentile" ; and, indeed, even to the present day the Jews sometimes speak of other nations as Greeks. Abstract for concrete. This clause irepiTOfi*! xal dicpoPuoTia. and the former have special reference to the Judaising tendency of the heretical teachers. 04p0apos, properly one who did not speak Greek (probably with the idea of talking " gibberish." Strabo explains it as onomatopoetic.) Hence the Greeks applied the term to all other nations. Even the older Roman poets (as Plautus) used the term of themselves; but later writers excluded the Romans from the class "barbari," and even included them under the term "EXAi^cs (Dion. Hal. Ant. Rom. v. 8). Lightfoot quotes a striking passage from Professor Max Muller " Not till that word barbarian was struck out of the dictionary of mankind, and replaced by brother, not till the right of all nations of the world to be classed as members of one genus or kind was recognised, can we look even for the first beginnings of our science (of language). This change was effected by Christianity"
iw
286

p. 81.
[UL 12
The whole
(Lectures on the Science of Language, ist Ser. passage is too long to cite).
IkoOtjs.
natural antithesis to pdppapos would be "EWrjv but as that has already been used the apostle substitutes for an antithesis a climax, for the Scythians were regarded as "barbaris barbariores," Bengel. The earlier Greek
(cf.
The
14)
Rom.
i.
on the principle " omne ignotum pro magnifico," described them as cwo/xoi (Aesch. Frag. 189); but Josephus says they are ppaxy v Qyptw Sia^cpovw (contra Ap. iL 37). Cicero uses a climax similar to that before us, " quod nullus in barbaria, Quis hoc facit ulla in Scythia tyrannus?" (In Pisonem, viii.). The word ^tcvOrp was used of any rough person, like our " Goth." This clause has reference, perhaps, to the stress laid by the Gnostic teachers on their yvoxris. There was a special reason for St Paul's SoGXos, JXcittcpo*. thoughts being directed to the relation of master and slave, in the incident of Onesimus conversion and return to his master. itdvra and tA irrfira are very frequently used by classical Wetstein on 1 Cor. xv. 28 quotes writers as predicates of persons. many examples. One or two may suffice here. Dem. De Corm p. 240, trdvr cjcctyos rjv avroW: cont. Ariston% p. 660, -rrdvra fjv A\4av&pos ; Lucian, De Morte Peregr. 1 1, wpo^rprr^ kq.1 (vvaywyw,
writers, indeed,
#cal
rd irdvra /jlqvos avros wv. 13-17. Virtues to be cultivated, kindness, love, forgiveness, in which Gods forgiveness of us is to be the pattern ; mutual teaching
and admonition, and in everything thankfulness, everything being done in the name ofJesus Christ Id. cr8u<raa0e ouk, having put on the new man, put on also
these virtues.
Rom. viii. 33 ; Tit. i. 1. In St Paul and orAoyi; (Rom. xi. 28, 29), are coextensive, as indeed they seem to be in other N.T. writers (cf. Rev. xvii. 14) except the Gospels, where ic\.iyroC and ckAcktch us c#cAc#croi has a are distinguished (Matt xxiv. 22, 24, 31 al.).
As {kXcktoI tou 6cow.
Cf.
k\ijtoi
and IkAckto^
#cAi}<ri$
significant connexion with what precedes, since the cieAoyiJ is presupposed in what is said in w. 10, 11. Ayioc icai ^yamripA'oi are best taken as predicates of cWcVrot, which with and without rov eov is used in several places as a
substantive.
Kal is om. by B 17 Sah., and Lightfoot brackets sentence gains in force by the omission ; cf. I Pet. ii. 6.
it,
thinking that the
M viscera," denoted especially the nobler inward parts, heart, liver, and lungs, and figuratively the seat of the emotion, as we use the word "heart"
oirXdyxe* oirnpjiou.
"
A heart of compassion."
oTrAayxvo, like
m. 18,
The
14]
VIRTUES TO BE CULTIVATED
287
singular olcripfiov is supported
by very preponderant
authority.
Xpi)or6ri|Ta, cf.
TairciKo^poounf).
Eph. ii. 7. Eph. iv.

âuTois.
2,
vpavrrfra fiaKpoOvfiiav, ibid,

variation
18. di*x<$jiK04 dXX^Xwf, ibid.
xal
cavrots,
xap^V*"*
see Eph.
iv.
For the
latter
from
&\krj\tav to
32.
The
word marks more

#cvpcos
strikingly
than dAAijXoi? would the correspondence with 6

v/uv.
ixapUraro
pop+^, not found elsewhere in the N.T. nor in Sept. or Apocr. " Quarrel " of the fiofi<f>tjy is frequent AV. is an archaism. To be connected with the Ka6us xal 6 Kuptos ixapUraro following words, ovrw *ai v/iet (as RV.), supplying, therefore, not Assuming, as is probable, that Xapt6fivoi, but x<iptco-0c (caimuc). o Kv/xo?=o Xpto-ros, this is the only place where Christ is In the parallel in Eph. directly said to forgive (see on ii. 13). Meyer remarks that the iv. 32, the subject is 6 0c6s iv Xpurrw. very frequent fj x<*P l * tov Kvplov rfft>v corresponds with the present expression. It is perhaps pressing the technical sense of Kvptoq too much to suppose, with Lightfoot, that it suggests the duty of fellow-servant to fellow-servant, recalling the lesson of the parable of the Unforgiving Servant, Matt, xviii. 27 ; compare below, iv. 1. It must be observed that the KaBm has reference only to the fact of forgiveness, not to the manner of its exhibition in the death of Christ (as Chrys. Theoph. aL).
In
classical writers l\iv
The
reading cannot be regarded as certain*

Pelag.
For 6
tcCpioi
are
ABD*
G 31 3 d e f g Vulg.
almost all mss. Syr. (both), Sah. Boh. For 6 Xpurrdt, Eth. Arab. (Bedwell), Clem. Chrys. Euthal. (cod. Tisch.), Theodoret, aL H* has 6 6e6r f while 1 7 Arm. have 6 9e&t 4r Xpiarf. Augustine also has the latter reading in one place {Ep. 148), but in another 6 Kvpioi. It is suggested, on the one hand, that Xpurrfa has been substituted (as in other places) as an interpretation of Kvpioi, especially as it occurs in Eph. iv. 32 (but not in the same connexion) ; and, on the other side, it has been suggested that Kfyxof originated in an attempt at conformation with the passage in Eph. Alford, Meyer, Lightfoot, RV. Weiss read Lachmann, Treg. give a place KtJpiot. Tisch. Ellicott read X/xorfe, to which RV. and in the margin.
KM CDKLP
WH.
WH.
iroat S2 toutois. "And over all these," the figure of 14. clothing being retained, as the verb iv&vo-acrOc has still to be carried on. o i*nv. The pronoun is not without difficulty. The illustrations cited by Lightfoot from Ignatius are hardly parallel, Rom, 7, aprov 0cov 0c\ai, 3 iariv <rap( Xpurrovt Magn, IO, viav Cvp.rjv o ioriv *Irj<rovs Xpurro*. In these cases the words following o iariv are an explanation of the words preceding, and S law "id
288
est,"
81/0,
[m. 14
or "by which is to be understood." So in Mark xii. 42, Xcirra o iari KO&paump: XV. 42, irapaxrKCvrj, 6 i<rrt wpocrdfiParov. In none of these cases does o l<mv, k.t.X. predicate a property or character of the antecedent. In order that the present instance
should be
parallel, r. ayamjv and crvvS, r. tcX. should change places. Eph. v. 5 is nearer, irAcovocn/?, o iartv ctoVoAoAarpi/s, and Ign. TralL 7> ayaKT)jo*acr0c iavrovs iv wiotci o i<mv crap rov Kv/x'ov yet
:
tlStokoXdrpr^ is not, indeed, an neither are these quite parallel. explanation of the word uAcovcKnys, but it expresses his true character. Probably the form of expression is to be accounted o-uVScoyios, k.t.A.., explains the view taken of for by the figure. &yaTnjv when cVl ircuri rovrois is applied to it An alternative is to suppose the antecedent to be to ev8uow0<u rip ayamjv : and so
Huther and Soden.

well
oufScapos
Tfjs
But
this certainly
does not
suit the sense
so
TcXci6-n)To$.
Love binds the
virtues
into
harmonious whole, not as if they could exist without it, for it might be called by a different figure the root of all ; but the figure of clothing here adopted required that its relation to the other virtues should be put in a different aspect, vdvra cVcira, says Chrysostom, avn/ <rv<r^fcyycr oirp av tlirgs ayadov, ravrqs airownjs ovoev cWiv, dkka Stappcl, to which Theoph. adds viroic/Mot? oWa.
perfect, the genitive
is the otwoW/aos here that makes all rather under the head of the possessive than of the objective. Lightfoot seems to take the latter view, explaining " the power which unites and holds together all those graces and virtues which together make up perfection." This not only involves a very questionable meaning of retaionys, as if ra t^v Tc\cton7Ta 7roiouvTa, Chrys., but gives an inadequate repre-
njs tc\ci4ti)tos.
As
it
comes
sentation Of the function Of dydmj. Wetstein quotes from Simplicius, in Epict. p. 208 A, a strikingly parallel expression of the Pythagoreans: xaXm 01 HvOayoptloi irc/Morrak rutv oAAcdv aperutv rrjv <f>t\tav iripjtov ical <ruvSccr/iOK avrrjv
ttoow
iw operant ZXcyov.
and many others take the genitive to be one of quality, " the perfect bond," which is not only feeble, but leaves o-vvoWftos undefined. Bengel, De Wette, Olshausen, al. understand by ovvSev/ia* the "totality," as in Herodian, iv, c7rrroAu>v, "the whole bundle o letters/' 12. 11, irdvra rov o\ But there is no instance of crvvSeo-pos being used figuratively in this sense ; nor does it agree with the context, in which dydmf is represented as put on tt! irao-i, not to say that it would require the article. In Eph. iv. 3 the gen. after <rw8ecr/Aos is one of apposition.
Grotius, Erasmus, Estius
iw
For
TtXti&rrjTot
D* G d c g and
Ambrosiaster have iybnjrou
1H. 15]
289
which
15. kcu ^ cirf") *"* Xpurrou. The peace of Christ is the peace gives and has left to His Church, tprjvr)v riyv c/x^v
He
But it is Christ's peace in another &&i>/u vfuv, John xiv. 27. sense, as the peace which belongs to His kingdom by virtue of 19 His sovereignty; compare the expression, "the King's peace. The immediate reference here is not to the inward peace of the But soul, but to peace one with another, as the context shows. it cannot be limited to this, the moment the words are uttered or heard they suggest the other reference. 0pa0v^T, only here in N.T. ; see on Kara/?pa/icvcra>, ii. 18. As there observed, fipafitvw had dropped, for the most part, the reference to a contest, and was used of deciding or governing in general. Josephus, Ant iv. 3. 2, uses it as synonymous with vdvra <r$ irpovoup ouhkcitcu, OLourciv ; Moses, in his prayer, says
:
jcoI firjShf
6XXa Kara fiovXtftrty /?pa/?cu6ficyov rrpr <rqv ds tcXos tp\Tau Again, id. f&paptvw ofiovolay koI dprjmrjv. Philo, Quis Rer. Div. L p. 494 A, ov Oavfuurrov &k vap AXrjO^
aurofurroK,
fipaPcvowry. The transition of
meaning is exactly parallel to that of the which from meaning the sentence of an 19 arbitrator comes to signify "will and pleasure. " Jovis nutu et ' arbitrio caelum terra mariaque reguntur, Cic. pro Rose. Atner. c Obtinere arbitrium rei Romanae," Tac. Ann. vL c. ult. 45. Hence there is no necessity to insist on the idea of a contest of opposing parties, and the attempt to introduce it by reference to a conflict of motives, etc., really forces on the text more than Chrysostom carries this to an extreme, oraoW is suggested by it
Latin "arbitrium,
99
9
ivSov cTrotiprcv iv rots
Xoyur/Aoic, kcu dya>va
*ccu
aOXtfCiv
teal fipa-
The
sense then appears to be, " let the peace of Christ be the
ruling principle in your hearts."
In order that this principle may govern iv Teas KopSiais dfiwy. your actions and your words, it must first govern in your hearts.
XpwroO is the reading of K* B C* D* P 37 47, Vulg. Syr. (both), Boh. Sah, Ann. Eth. 6<oG isinHCt c KLi7, Goth. As 4 c^n? row Oeov occurs in PhiL The iv. 7, the substitution of GeoO for Xpurrou is readily accounted for. latter is clearly more suitable to the present context, since tlp^vrj rod Qcou could not well be understood of anything but our peace with God. In Phil. iv. 7, has XpurroO. Bengel and others who defend the reading QeoO here, suppose X/M0TO0 to have come in from 13 or 16.
ct
we were
ital
^kX^0t)tc
This
is
also called."
Comp.
nearly equivalent to "for to that Cor. vii. 15, iv cfywjvfl kvcXtjkcv
t)/u 6 cos.
iv Ivl o^ffcaTi.
their calling 19
;
Not-cfe tv o-S/io, but expressing the result of they are so called that they are in one body. It is
290
on the
[IEL 16
fact that this is their present condition that the stress is

cf.
placed As there is one body, there should be one spirit ; Eph. iv. 3, 4, rrjpttv rrjv ivorr/ra rov irvcu/tarof ev T<g truvSco-fUp
iprjvTj<;f
ti}
*Ev
o-cu/ta *cai
tv irvcv/xa,
#c.r.A.
xal ctydf "Trot yiKeo^c. " And become thankful." Thankfulness for this calling is the strongest motive for the preservation of the peace to which they were called. The mention of this leads on to
follows. yCvcr$ is used because the ideal is not yet reached, cvxapurros does not occur elsewhere in N.T. It is not uncommon in classical writers, both in the sense "thankful" and "pleasant" (so usually of things). It occurs once in Sept, and then in the latter sense, Prov. xL 16, ywrj vx*pt<rro$. Some commentators take it
what
here in the latter sense (cf. Eph. iv. 32, xpiprTOi). So Jerome, Beza, a'Lapide, Olshausen, Reiche ; " in mutuo vestro commercio estott gratiosi, amabiles^ comes qua virtute pax et concordia . . saepe servantur," Reiche. This sense is certainly not inappropriate and in favour of it it may be observed that the duty of thankfulness is brought in as the final exhortation in ver. 17. 16. A \6yos too XpioTou. In 1 Thess. L 8, iv. 15 St Paul has b Xoyos rov Kvptov, but more usually 6 A. rov 0oO. The change here is probably owing to the apostle's purpose of exalting the position of Christ, which is characteristic of this Epistle. The gen. may be either objective, as in cvayy&uov Xptorov, or subjective (as most comm.), " the word delivered by Christ." It is generally understood as = the gospel, but Lightfoot interprets it as denoting "the presence of Christ in the heart as an inward monitor. Comp. I John ii. 14, 6 \6yos rov 0cov iv vplv /xcpci, with id. L 10, o Xoyos avrov ovk lartv iv vfitv and so perhaps Acts xviii. 5, (Twciêro Tj koyw (the correct reading)." Probably the "teaching of Christ" generally is meant; and so apparently Chrysostom, rovrtartv, rf OioWKoXto, rot 8dy/iara, f) irapaiv<ris. See On Lk. viii. 1 1. cV fljuf. Not " among you," which would not agree with the idea of "indwelling." Yet it cannot well be understood of each individual, as if referring to the faith and knowledge of each. Since the context speaks of oral communication one with another, iv v/uv then means, probably, " in you as a collective body." This is not the same as "among you." lrXouaius. The fulness of this indwelling exhibits itself in the following words. iv irdor) ao+ia. Lightfoot joins these words with the foregoing, comparing for their position ch. i. 9 and Eph. i. 8, which, however, determine nothing. He thinks this connexion is favoured by the parallel in Eph. v. 18, 19 ; but this only decides that ôA/xois, k.t.A*, are to be connected with the preceding words. On the other hand, it may be observed that ivoiKurv is already qualified by Trkowriw, which emphatically stands at the end Ch. i. 28 is
.
:
HI. 16]
29I
irdvra
strongly in favour of the connexion with the following, vovOcrovms avOpwwov ical Sioookoitcs irdvra avdptoirov iv nuarg <r<xf>Lq* Here the correspondence in meaning is surely of more weight than the position of the words, which precede in the one case as appro-
comp. L 28 ; and on âA/tou, there the reference does not appear to be exclusively or chiefly to public worship, for mutual instruction is what is prescribed.
k.t.X.,
priately as they follow in the other. &i84<rKoiTt$ and pouOctouitcs
On
Eph.
v. 18.
Here as
Ka( both before and after 0/troct Vulg. (best mss.) Syr-Pesh. Goth. al.
ft
is
omitted by
KABC*D*FG, defg
was much more

is
likely to
be added than omitted erroneously, and the
omission
quite Pauline.
is
r is inserted in K*B D G 67*, Chrys. comm. Omitted in K A K L (to which we may perhaps add C, in which written but expunged by dots above and below), Chrys. text
x*P
reading with the article is adopted by critical editors Reiche argues strongly in favour of the omission. If it is read there are two interpretations possible, for x<fyw may mean either the Divine grace, or thanksgiving. The former meaning For rj \dpi% is adopted by Meyer, Alford, Ellicott, Lightfoot, etc = the grace of God, compare ch. iv. 18, 17 xdpis f**^ vp>v: Acts 2 Cor. iv. 15; Gal. v. 4; xviii. 27, Tois ir7rtoTcvKoori 810 ri} x*PlTO* Eph. iv. 7 ; Phil. L 7, ovyicoivcovous fwv rrjq xdptros. It must, however, be admitted that none of these passages is parallel to the present In all of them 1} \dpi<; is spoken of as something conIt k different ferred, and therefore can only be 17 x- TO*> co ^ here, where the readers are directed to do something iv rg x<OTt. Hence the other interpretation, "with thankfulness," which is that of Anselm, De Wette, Bleek (omitting rg) 9 Soden, seems cyw preferable. For \dp^ in this sense see 1 Cor. x. 30, ei \apvn /actcxcd, where the apostle himself interprets \d.pvn in the following clause vnlp 08 cyw cfyapMrrai. The article is sufficiently accounted for by the reference to the previous c$xapToi. Meyer, on the supposition that \dpv: is understood as "thanksgiving," would interpret the article as meaning " that which is due." It is not a valid objection to this view of \*PL* that the idea of thanksgiving is introduced in the next verse ; on the contrary, the precept there is an extension of this one what is here said of singing is there said of everything. Theophylact's interpretation is different ; he takes xaP*' * n the sense "venustas," " pleasingness," jura x<*f>t? *<** i;8ovi/s ttvw/UZTU075 uxnrtp yap to iyOpwirtva or//.ara \dpiv fyciv $OKav(rurf ci prj wvpaTixyv$ ovtu rd tfcta, irvcvp.aTiKrjv ; so also BengeL Compare
generally, but
:
The
&
292
[HL
17
X. 12,
for this use of x*p* Ps- xlv, 3, i^xyOrj X^P** *" x** c<r* crou 5 Eccles. Xoyot oroftaro? o-oôv X^F*} Luke iv. 22, cdav/iafov cVt rots
Xoyots
tt}s
\dpiTos ; also ch.
iv. 6,
6 Aoyos v/iwv irairorc cV

i.
x^PlTtm
Compare
twv Aoyuv x<*ptt and Reiche, adopting this interpretaso in classical writers frequently. tion, remarks : "recte et perspicue iv x*pt" oWe$ ii dicuntur, qui carmina sacra cantant et modulantur venuste, decore, suaviter, ita ut etiam cultioribus et pulchri sensu praeditis placeant" To the objection that the following words show that the apostle is speaking of silent singing in the heart, he replies by defending the reading cV r$ tcap&Cq. and interpreting it as *="ex ammo, i.e. non ore tantum sed etiam cum animi assensu," a questionable sense of cV t% KopSlq. vfuav. See on Lk. iv. 22 and Rom. L 5. In conformity with the connexion assigned to cv vianj <ro+i& ev tq âptrt is to be joined to what follows. Lightfoot naturally takes
also
Demosth.
p. 5 1 (i%*7.
38),
1)
with the preceding. These words may either specify fSorrcs tV Tats icapSiais upS?. another effect of the cVoucciv, #c.r.A. (Alford, /.), or they may denote the inward disposition which was to accompany the Sioao-jcoprec, If tq xapirt is understood as above, the latter view would #c.r.A. be the more suitable (Soden). It is preferred apart from that by Lightfoot
it is supported by preponderant authority, K B C D* G, Goth. Syr. (both), Sah. Boh. Arm., Chrys. most mss., Eth., Gem. Ephr. TJj xaptlq, is supported by Theodoret Compare Eph. v. 19, where the singular appears to be the genuine reading. The singular here, as the plural there, is probably due to an attempt to harmonise Eph. and Col. 1 r$ Bcf is the reading of N 17 47 67 aL % dfg Vulg. Sah. Syr. (both), Arm., Clem, al, r Ku/>ty b that of (?DKL most mss., Goth. Boh., Ephr. Theodoret, aL This, again, is harmonistic, the parallel in Eph. having ry (Chrys. varies). KvpUp without variation.
4r reuf
KapMau
defg Vulg.
DKL
ABC*D*G
17.
ical ir&y
i&v voitjtc eV
x.
X<fy*>
f,
iv ?py.
A nominative
. .
absolute.
Comp. Matt
32, tos ofo

xii.
Son*
o/ioAoyiyo-ci
6>o-
Xoyrj<r<a #cdyo> Iv aur<p:
Luke
10.
As wav would become the
object in the following clause, it is replaced by iraKro. might supply to this 7toiowtcs, parallel to the other irrffTo. participles ; but it is much better to supply iroutrc, especially as cvxapcoTovpTc? is subordinate. Comp. Eph. v. 20. "In the name iv o^jicm Kupioo 'iijaou. of" here means, not "calling on for aid," as Chrys. eta, nor "in honorem," as Jerome, but in the spirit which regards Christ as all and in all, the spirit which belongs to those who bear His name. " Ut perinde sit, ac si Christus faciat, ver. 1 1 [this is too strong] vel certe, Qui potest dicere ; Hoc in tuo% Jew ut Christo omnia pobetis. Christe, nominefecit is certe actionem suam Christo probat," BengeL
We
XXL
18-flO]
SPECIAL PRECEPTS
293
t Amiat ToL
is here another difference of reading. Kvplov 'IiproO is the reading of B D 17 37 most mss., Goth. Syr-Pesh. Arm., Chrys.
There
'I^roO XpieroQ, Kvplov 'Iipov XptroQ,
A C D G g.
#
fet,
de
Vulg. (Clem.), Field, at. Syr. (Hard), San.
Boh. Eth.
Before rarpl, *ai is added in Syr-Pesh. Arm., Chrys. (cf. Eph. Boh. Syr. (Hard.), Eth. Goth.
D G K L and nearly all mss., d e f g Vnlg. . 20). It is absent from KABC, Sah.
Special precepts for the several relations of life, the 18- IV. motive being in each, that what is done is done " in the Lord."
18. at yiiNuicct, k.t.X.
ISCoif , prefixed in
Comp. Eph.
22.
v. 22.
slight support,
Rec
Text to d>9pdVtr, has but
and has
probably come from Eph.
6$ dnJKCK, imperfect, as often in Greek writers with similar Comp. Eph. v. 4, ovk &vtjkv: Acts xxii. 22, 0$ yap KaOrjKw clvtov (fiv. It is not implied here that the duty has not hitherto been rightly performed, but only that the obligation existed
verbs.
previously.
parallel, since
use of the past tense in the English " ought " is not quite n the present " owe cannot be used in this sense. iv Kopw is to be joined with anjiccv, not with viroTao-owflc : see Kvpup, "for those who are in the ver. 20, cvdpcordv iarrtv Lord."
The
= Eph. V. 25. " Become not embittered," or rather, as this would seem to imply a lasting temper, "show no bitterness." The word occurs frequently in classical writers. Plato has {Legg.
19. ol aropcs, *vr.X.
|if)
mapaivcaOc.
731 D), tov Ovfxov irpaiviv

ftcvov, StarcXciy
:
#c.
firj
dxpaxoXovvra, ywaixcia* rrucpcuv6prjScvl firjr irucpaivtaOau p.rgr
Pseudo-Dem. 1464,
pvT)<riKOKtv.
adjective n-cxpds is used by Euripides in a strikingly illustrative passage, Helen. 303, orav irons irucpo? (wjj ywaiKi . . . Oavtlv tcparioTov. Plutarch observes that it shows weakness of mind when men irpbs yvvaia Siawucpaivovrcu. Philo
The
De Vita Moysis, ii. pp. 135, 20, The word would seem, then, to correspond more 132, 34. nearly with the colloquial "cross" than with "bitter."
uses vucpaivta-Oai of just anger.
and
20. Td TcVro, k.t.X. See Eph. vL 1. Disobedience to parents mentioned as a vice of the heathen, Rom. L 30, icard wavra. There would be no propriety in suggesting the possibility in a Christian family of a conflict between duty to parents and duty to God. *6dpOTov. There is no need to supply r$ 6c<p ; the adjective is taken absolutely, like vpoo-^tAj; in PhU. iv. 8, and is sufficiently defined by iv Kvptiy. In Rom. zii. 2 vdp<nw seems also to be
is
absolute, to 0eXi?/ia tov 8cov to dyatfov xat cvdp,
ical tcXciot.
294
[IDL 21-3*
The Rec. Text has, instead of iv Kvply, ry Kvply, with many cursives, Boh. Eth., Clem. al. iv KvpUf is the reading of all the uncials, most cursives, and versions. The Rec. arose from a desire to give a dative to cdpe<rror.
21. fif) cpcdi'lcTc. " Do not irritate." The verb means to " excite, provoke," not necessarily to anger, or in a bad sense ; and in a Cor.
ix.
it is
used in a good sense.

is
There
read in
another reading, Tapopyl^cre, very strongly supported, being
K A C D* G K L al. Euthal. (Tisch. cod. ), Theodoret (cod.), Theoph. ipeditere is read in B D te K, most mss., Syr. (both, but Hard maxg. nas
no
variety),
the other reading), Clem. Chrys. Tapopylfert occurs in the parallel Eph. vi. 4 (with is obviously due its introduction here.
and to
this
Tw
animus
ji*|
dOujiuaiK.
"That they may not
lose heart"
"Fractus
pestis juventutis," Bengel.
A child frequently irritated by
it must submit, acquires a spirit of sullen resignation, leading to despair. 22. ol SouXoi, k.t.X. Comp. Eph. vL 5 ff. Here it is observable that the duties of masters and slaves occupy nearly twice as much space as those of husbands and wives, parents and children, The circumstance is perhaps explained by the incident together. of Onesimus, a Colossian, who was now returning to his master, Philemon, in company with the bearer of the Epistle. $o0ou'|Ai>oi tok Kupioy, i.e. the one Lord and Master, contrasted with Tois Kara o-ap/ca Kvptots. Observe that these words are not preceded by ok, whereas &vOptinrap<rKoi is. It is taken for granted that they fear the Lord
over-severity or injustice, to which, nevertheless,
tv 6+faX|io8ovXcCai, the plural is read with most mss., Clem. Theodoret, Oecum., Syr-Harcl. B G, /., Boh. have the singular. Chrysostom varies. # Ktiptow is the reading of K B C D* L al, f g Amiat Fuld. Syr. (both), Arm., Clem. Chrys. al> 0e6w is read in K D most mss., d Goth. Boh., Theodoret This reading spoils the contrast 28. ft lor woit|t. This is the correct reading, with (D* G) 17 have d> for 4&v). /., Old Lat. Vul. Goth. Boh. Arm. etc. (D* b most mss., Syr. (both), The Rec. Text has teal raw 6 Air, with Theodoret, Chrys. (without *ol). This reading obviously comes from ver. 17.
KCKL
A D
G D KL
X*ABC
Eph, vL 6. fMT& cdroias. Mi) ficra Sovkucfj? &yay$ctf%9 &cv0cptac jcai irpoaipco'ca)?, Chrys. fpytflcafe. "Do the work." Not used as particularly appropriate to slaves, but because the things done are cpya. 6s t6 Kupitt, k.t.\. Eph. vL 7, 24, &*6 Kvptov. Lightfoot notes the absence of the article here, while it is studiously inserted in the context, w. 22-24. In the parallel in Eph. the preposition is vapa. Some commentators and grammarians distinguish the two prepositions as expressing respectively the immediate (vapd) and
ck +ux^5.
/icra
aAAa
IXX. 24,
06]
;
SPECIAL PRECEPTS
but this distinction
is
29$
See light-
the ultimate source

foot
untenable.
on GaL i
12.
24. fty drromSSoatK. "The full recompense." The word is frequently used both in the Sept and in classical writers, but not
elsewhere in N.T.
Genitive of apposition, the reward which conthe inheritance. There is a special point in the word, inasmuch as slaves could not be inheritors of an earthly possession. Comp. Rom. viii. 15-17 ; GaL iv. 1-7. t& KupiM Xpurrf SouXciictc. ydp, which in the Rec. Text is inserted after t<3, must be rejected.
ttjs icXT/poKOftias.
sists in
In favour of the insertion are D to K L most mss., Syr. (both), Arm. Goth. For the omission, KABCD* 17 /., Vulg. CopL Euthal. (Tisch. cod.). It was clearly added to make the connexion easy. G d and Ambrosiaster have rod icvpiov (4i/&* 'IrpoO) XptaroO <f 8ov\efor, but d and Ambr. omit the words in brackets.
ydp being omitted, the verb is best taken as imperative, " To the Master Christ do service." The combination Kvpios Xpurro? is not to be taken in the technical sense as = the Lord Jesus In Rom. xvi. 18, Christ, a use to which there is no parallel. where we have r<5 Kvpt'o* rjûiv Xpior^ some MSS. omit rjfifov but its genuineness is beyond question. In 1 Pet. iil 15 Kvptov is predicate of tw Xpurrov. This suggests that we should take Kvpiw here as relative to SovAcvctc The sentence is not so much a summary of what precedes as an introduction to the fresh point added in ver. 25 ; Lightfoot Lightfoot takes SovXcvcrc as indicative, on the grounds, first, that the indicative is wanted to explain the previous diro Kvptov (but is it?); and, secondly, that the imperative would seem to require J* Tip Kvpt'u, as in Eph. vl 7. On the other hand, however, he adds, see Rom. xii. n, r<3 Kvpuo SovXcvoktcs. If the interpretation above given is correct, arc is rightly absent, and in any case the indicative would be very abrupt and unconnected. Moreover, with this view the connexion of ver. 25 (ydp) would be Lightfoot passes it over in silence. hardly intelligible. 25. 6 ydp dSucwp ko|ucitoi & 4)SiKi)crcK, xal o6k coti irpocrfcnro\T]4ta. The first clause is, of course, a general maxim, but the application here chiefly intended appears from the words ovk coti vpwnavo\r$la, which presuppose that the person punished is one higher in position, o doWv, also, is much more suitable to the master than the slave ; and this view is further confirmed by the mention of to hiKoiov in iv. 1. Hence 6 A&ikw in the present case is the master, and the words are designed to encourage the slave to regard himself as the servant of Christ, and as such not to be disheartened by unjust treatment, knowing that before the final tribunal there will be no respect of persons. So Theodoret, !*
:
296
/)

"
[IV. 1,
tux1/1 8
&y<iQ<*>v
avrairoS6<rwv irapa rov oWttotov, $<rrl &#caio*ptriy
dAAa SiKataV L<T<f>pl ripr But Chrys. Bengel, and others suppose the ol&lkwv to be the slave. "Tenues saepe putant, sibi propter tenuitatem ipsorum esse parcendum. Id negatur," Bengel; cf. Lev. xix. 15. It must be observed, however, that some of those who adopt this view have had before them the reading 6 & a&iKwv (so Chrys.). Erasmus, Lightfoot, and many others (following Jerome) suppose both masters and slaves to be referred to, as in Eph. vi. S. On the other hand, ib. ver. 9, irpoo-unroXrjil/Ca owe fori imp avrw, is
05 OVK otSc OOl'AoV KCU ScOTTOTOV $UL<j>Opdv,
\lrij<t>ov.
said with respect to the masters only. KopiciTcu. "Shall be requited for";
irpO0uiTo\T]i|fia, ibm 9.
4j&iKT]<rcK.
cf.
Eph.
vi.
8,
and
for
The
tense
is past,
from the point of view of the time
referred to in #co/uc?rcu.
For the reading the authorities are For y&p, N 17 a/., Old Lat Vulg. Goth. Boh., Gem. ml For W, DC KL, most mss., Syr. (both), Chrys. Theodoret, at.
ABCD*G
differs
IV. 1. t6 SinaioK xal t\v \v6-n\Ta. " Justice and fairness." Ixrorrp from to SUaiov nearly as our "fair" from "just," denoting what cannot be brought under positive rules, but is in accordance with the judgment of a fair mind. Compare Philo, De Creat.
Princ.
ii. p. 401, to-on^ fiv oZv r^v c#c r<2v vmjKoiav %votav #cal Meyer and SmrfaXtiav aôifta*; Swcatas avTKTLv6vru>v dircpydo-crai. others suppose the meaning to be that slaves are to be treated as equals, not as regards the outward relation, but as regards the Christian brotherhood (see Philem. 16). It would be a very obscure way of expressing this thought to say to 6Y*. *a\ Tip
nor does it agree well with the following clause, Perhaps, xT Kvptov, not as in Eph., avruw kol vp&v. indeed, we may regard to. avrd in Eph. (oi xvptot, to, avra iroitm irpos avrovs) as illustrating lo-dV^s here. The same moral principles were to govern both. icroTrjra ov ttjv io-oripUav &edAo-v, dAAa rrj TrpoarjKowrav iTrifiiXttav, ^5 irapa tSi/ SecnroTwv diroXavctv xpiy tovs otxcTa9, Theodoret. Erasmus, Corn, a Lapide understand the word of impartiality, not treating one slave differently from others
WoTirjfra
:
irapô-Ot
teal
u/tcfc
would be consistent with harsh treatment of alL " Supply on your side." 2-6. Exhortation to constant prayer and thanksgivings to which is added the apostle*s request that they would pray for himself in his work. Practical advice as to wisdom in action and speech.
but
this
iraplxccrOc.
2. Tg
v. 17.
irpoaeoxfi
We
irpoaitapTepeiTC = Rom. xii. 12; cf. have the same verb similarly used in Acts L
Thess.
14, vL 46,
vi
4.
" Being watchful in it," i.e. not careless autq. YpTjYopourrcs lirtiBrj yap to KapTpclv cv rats curate pa^v/ictv roAAaxte in the act.
IV. 3, 4]
7rom, 8i& tovto
REQUEST FOR THEIR PRAYERS

<f>rpn
2Q7
fit]
yptjyopovyrS tovtcoti n/ôvrc?,
/fc/i/So/icvoi
(wandering), Chrys.
iL 7).
uiv
With thanksgiving (as an accompaniment ; cf. avrq yap ff aXrjOivr] tv)(rj f) cvxapiOTiai' <?xovo a v1r*P itovtw bfjLcv teal Sp owe lo-p.tv> u>v cv" irrajBofiev 1} ^0Ai/Jo/icv, wrip tw^
i cftxopOTi?.
"
xotvaiv rfcpycctwi',
3. irpoacux^jAcôi
Theophylact &pa koi wept
4|p&K.
"Praying at the same
time also for us," including, namely, Timothy, named with St Paul as sending the Epistle, but also, no doubt, including all who helped him in his work (w. 10-14). Ira. The prayer is not for the personal benefit of the apostle and his companions, but for the promotion of their work. A door of admission for the word of the du'paK too \6yov. gospel, *>. the removal of any hindrance which might be in the way. The same figure is employed 1 Cor. xvi. 9 ; 2 Cor. ii. 12. Corn, a Lapide, Beza, Bengel, and others interpret Ovpav tow Xoyov as " the door of our speech/' '* our mouth, an interpretation suggested by Eph. vi. 19, fva /tot oofljj Xoyo? cv avoifa tov ord/taTos ftov, but certainly not consistent with tov Xoyov, which must mean " the word." XoXâot, infinitive of the end or object, "so as to speak " to fxva-rrjptov, *.t.X., i. 26, ii. 2 ; see Eph. i. 9. Si' o Kai S&cpai. For it was his preaching the free admission of the Gentiles that led to his imprisonment This is the only place in which St. Paul uses Sect? in the literal sense; but he uses oW/toi, Phil. L 7, 13, and elsewhere, as well as The transition to the singular was inevitable when he Scotuo*. passed from what was common to himself with others to What was
peculiar to himself.
Generally taken as dependent on the 4. Ira tayeptfcru, k.t.X. previous clause, " that God may open a door ... in order that," Beza, De Wette, a/. 9 however, make it dependent on irpwretc. cvxo/xcvw, which, on account of the change from plural to Bengel joins it with Sc'Scfuic, "vinctus singular, is improbable. sum ut patefaciam ; paradoxon." In this he follows Chrysostom, t& Scoria <f>avcpoi avrov, ov awnadfat but this is quite untenable. V. Soden, who also makes the clause dependent on Sc'Sc/iat, proposes a different interpretation. He observes that <f>av*povv is never used of St Paul's preaching, nor does the notion of fiver* It must therefore have a special TTfpiov account for its use here. significance, and this is to be found in its immediate reference to 8c'cfuu. St Paul, as a prisoner awaiting trial, had to explain How this turned out, he relates in what his preaching was. Phil. i. 1 2 fT. The sense then, according to v. Soden, is : M in order that I may make it manifest, how I am bound to speak," the emphasis being on 8c^ not <Ls. He desires to make clear to his
:
298

ix.
[IV.
5-*
judges, not only what wise ; compare i Cor.

61'
he preaches, but that he cannot do

16
;
other-
Acts
iv.
20.
all
is
the reading of
feC
ACDKL nearly
MSS., defVulg. Goth.,
But BG,g have di' &*, apparently a correction to wit Clem. Chiys. etc. XparoG, but destroying the point of the sentence.
5. tV
wpoi.
oo+m^ = practical Christian wisdom; cf. Matt x. 16. " With respect to,* or "in relation to," i.e. your behaviour
towards them.
tous {*. Those outside the Church ; compare 1 Cor. v. 12, 13 Thess. iv. 12. The expression is borrowed from the Jews, who so designated the heathen. On the precept Chrys. says, irpbs ra fitXr) ra ouccta ov Toaavrrp rjfitv 8ci cLrâAcia?, 00175 irpos rove Ir tvOa yap dScAôt, curt koi ovyyvtbpai iroAAat #cal dyadat.
1
tok xaipoK cSayoodXoKTes.
See Eph.
v.
1 6,
where
is
added a
reason for the injunction, viz. on at rjptpai -n-ovrjpai dariv, Still referring to behaviour, 6. 6 Xovos ujmjk irdKrorrc cV x<*P On x<V** = pleasingness, see above, iii. 16. \&pis irpos rovs ca>. \6yu>v is frequent in classical writers. a\cm ^pTU|Aw>s. "Seasoned with salt"; cf. Mark ix. 49, 50; pleasant but not insipid, nor yet coarse. Compare Plut Mor.
p.
514 F, xa-piv riva 7rapa<rKvaovTS aAAÂois, dxnrcp aXxrl tow Xoyois e<f>rprOvvovcn ttjv Starpift -qv and again, p. 669 A, fj 8i twv aXtxw Suva/us . \o-ptv aural teal rj&ovrjv TrpooTiOrjcri. aXas is a later
:
form.
cl&cVai,
infinitive
of object, as in ver.
3,
vw
8c? IVt
cxdWu
" to each one," according, namely, to the character, Compare the apostle's depurpose, Spirit, etc., of the inquirer. scription of his own behaviour, 1 Cor. ix. 22, rot? vaxn yiyova irdvra Iva irdrno? riva? owa>. His discourses and answers at Athens, and before Felix, Festus, and the Jews at Rome, supply
aTroKpivtaOai,
the best illustrations.
7-18. Persona/ commendations and salutations. 7. to hot c*ui = Phil. i. 12, "my matters"; cf. Acts xxv. 14. Not a noun absolute, but the object of yvcopto-cu On Tychicus, see Eph. vL 21, and compare Lightfoofs very full note here. 6 dVyaTnjTOs dScXôs = Eph. Lc. nal irurros Su&kofos koi auVSouXos cV Kvpiy. cv Kvplu is probably to be taken with both substantives, as both require some specifically Christian definition, which doVAô* does not ; and, moreover, in Eph. Lc. we have irtoro? Sidxovos cV Kvpi<p. owSovAoc is perhaps added in order to place Tychicus on a level with Epaphras, who is so designated L 7, and who was in high repute at Colossae. irtoTo? probably covers both substantives. 8. 6> Zirafujra, k.t.X- =- Eph. vL 22
IV.
0,
10]
PERSONAL COMMENDATIONS
299
As to the reading, the Rec. Text has Ua yv$ tA wept 6/ir, with K C Dl K L and most MSS., f Vulg. Goth. Syr. (both), Boh., Chrys. (expressly), Jerome (on Philemon), Ambrosiaster, al. fra yvCrre rh. repl Iim&v, A B D* G P a few cursives, d e g Arm. Eth., Theodore Mops. Theodoret, Jerome (on Eph. vL 21), Euthalius (cod.
Tisch.).
K* has yr&re with vfuov. K c at first corrected i>it&v to +iil&v to suit ywQrt, but afterwards deleted this correction and substituted yv<f for yvQre, The context, with the emphatic els ai/rd tqvto, so obviously requires ywurre . . . ^/i<3r, that, considering the weight of authority, we cannot regard this as an alteration made in conformity with Eph. vi. 22. Besides, it is very unlikely that the writer himself should, to the Ephesians, say, tit a&r6 roGro twa yr&re, jt.t.X., and to the Colossians of the same messenger, tit airrb rodro tra yvy, k.t.X. On the hypothesis that Eph. is not by the author of Col., it is equally improbable that the former should be written instead of the latter. The error may have arisen from re accidentally dropping out before ra t or, as Lightfoot suggests, when iffiww had once been written in error for ijfiwy (as in K*), yv&rt would be read yw$ re, as in in and John Dam. Of, ii. p. 214, and then the superfluous re would be dropped. These authorities, however, seem too late to be used to explain so early a corruption. Alford defends the Rec Text, in which he is followed by Klopper ; but most critics and commentators adopt the other reading,
0. ahv 'Off)<npw t$ yiot$ xal dyaTnjT doc\+$. Observe the delicacy with which Onesimus is given, as far as possible, the same predicates as Tychicus and Epaphras, he and Tychicus being, moreover, associated as subject of yvupunkrw. He was not &okovos or crvv8ovXo99 but as a faithful and beloved brother he is not
placed below them.

of ioriK c upw, hitherto, indeed, only
to Colossae; but now a brother beloved, Philem. 1 6. It deserves notice how St. Paul assumes that Onesimus will be welcomed as such by his former master and by the Church. Calvin's very natural remark, " Vix est credibile hunc esse servum ilium Philemonis, quia furis et fugitivi nomen dedecori subjectum fuisset," serves to put in strong relief this confidence of the apostle
Compare Rom. xvL 6, 12. who is of you, i.e. belongs

a
slave,
in the Colossians.
wdrra 6juk ywpiouffiK tA &Sc. This is not a formal restatement of ra kclt ifii9 but includes more than that phrase, and to n-col rffubv, namely, all that concerned the Church at Rome. This would naturally include an account of the conversion of Onesimus, who would be to them a living illustration of the success of St Paul's preaching in Rome. Note the change from yvupurti to yviapioxxrtv, in order more expressly to commend Onesimus to
their confidence.
Gdefg Vulg. Jerome,

which looks as
if it originated in
Ambrosiaster add after tWe, Tparr6fura t a gloss the Latin, which could not literally render
10. *A<nroXcT<u Aja&9 'Apurropxos.
Of Aristarchus we know
xix.
that
he was a Macedonian of Thessalonica, Acts
20, xx.
4; a
300

of the deputation to Jerusalem
(id.),
[IV. 11
member
St Paul
xxviL
2.
in the first part, at least, of his journey to
and a companion of Rome, Acts

it
Lightfoot (Philippians, p. 35) thought
probable that
he parted from St Paul at Myra, having accompanied him at first only because he was on his way home to Macedonia. If the centurion in whose charge St Paul was had not accidentally fallen in at Myra with a ship sailing to Italy, their route would have taken them through PhilippL If this view is correct, Aristarchus must have rejoined St Paul at Rome at a later date. In any case, the notices in Acts show that he would be well known in proconsular Asia. 6 <ruKcuxpiXT<Ss pou. atx/tuA.o>ro properly means a captive taken in war, and hence it has been supposed that it may here have reference to spiritual captivity ; cf. Rom. vii. 23 ; 2 Cor. x. 5 ; Eph. iv. 8. But none of these passages justify such an interpretaIn Rom. the verb is used of captivity to sin in Eph. it is tion. in a quotation from a Psalm ; while in Cor. it is the thoughts that are brought into captivity so as to be obedient to Christ There is no analogy to support the supposed use of atx/uiAwroc absolutely in the sense supposed. It would be particularly unlikely to be so used in a letter actually written from prison.
-,
On the other hand, St Paul speaks of the service of Christ in terms of military service ; cf. 2 Tim. ii. 3, and ovtrrpaTKbrip, Phil, it. 25 ; Philemon 2. It is in accordance with this that he should use the term o-waixjidXorros here (and of Epaphras in Philem. 23). It has been conjectured that St Paul's helpers may have voluntarily shared his imprisonment in turn ; for Epaphras, who is here a (rwcpyos, is in Philemon a orweuxp., and Aristarchus here owcuxp.
is
there a <rwcpyd*. Mrfpxot 6 dvi|i^s Bapwipo, "cousin," so defined by Pollux,

&&c\<f><M>v ira?$? dvci/aot, ctrc itc
iil
28,
irarpaScA.ân'
ctcrt,
ctrc Ik fnjrpa-
&ik<f>a)V ctrc i
dScAôv *at dScAî}?, ct/ itc Svotv apphnov aScA.^wi' c?r* The use of it for " nephew n is very late. The relationship explains why Barnabas was more ready than Paul to condone Mark's defection, Acts xv. 37-39. At the same time, the passage throws light in turn on the rather remarkable form of commendation here, " if he comes unto you, receive him." The Pauline Churches, which were aware of the estrangement, might not be very ready to give a very hearty welcome to Mark. Comp. 2 Tim. iv. 1 1. Scxco-ftu is a regular term for hospitable reception. See, for example, Matt x. 14 ; John iv. 45 ; often also
Ik hvoiv Orj\iMv.
in classical writers.
These injunctions probably had reference to irapl 5, k.t.\. the friendly reception of Mark, so that their purport is repeated in the following words. Not mentioned elsewhere. IX 'lijaou? 6 XcyljieKos 'louoros. The surname Justus is applied to two other persons in the
IV. 12]
PERSONAL SALUTATIONS
301
N.T., namely, Joseph Barsabbas, Acts l 23, and a proselyte at Corinth, Acts xviii. 7. It was a frequent surname amongst the Jews. ot Sire* wtpiTOfitjs. These words are best connected with the following, oiW plKot, k.t.X. The sense then is, "of those of the 9 circumcision, these alone are/ etc Otherwise, ovroi fiovot would not be true (see vo. 12-14), and ot 6Vtc? Ik w. would have no significance. This construction, in which the more general notion stands first as in a nominative absolute, and the particular notion follows with the verb, is used by classical writers.
comp. Phil. ii. 20, ov&cva l\in urtyvxov* the predicate, so that the apostle does not apply the term to the opponents. olr\vt% as usual specifies, not the individuals, but the character, "men that proved." See on Lk. ii. 4. The aorist cycn/6\ow seems to refer to some definite recent occasion. wapTjyopfo, "comfort," only here in N.T., frequent in Plutarch. There is no ground for Bengel's distinction, that vapafivOCa refers to domestic, and traprjyopia to forensic trouble. So far as the latter word has a technical sense, it is medical (cf. "paregoric"); but it is commonly used of consolation in general 18. 'Eiro+pas, see i. 7. " Who is one of you. 1* 6 it flfiK. SouXos XpurToG *It)<tou. title frequently used by St Paul of himself, once of Timothy in conjunction with himself, Phil. i. 1, but not elsewhere of any other. miiTOTe dyuKil^fACKos, k.t.X. Compare i. 29. Ira <rri)Tc tAcioi koi irTr\r\poôpr\fiivoi, " That ye may stand fast, trnjpai, as in Eph. vl n, 13, a/. conperfect and fully assured." veys the idea of standing firm ; hence rcXctot koI ircrrA. are secondary predicates, the first expressing the objective moment, the second the subjective ; they were not only to be tcXcuh ev Xpurrtfr i. 28, but to have full assurance ; cf. ii. 2. tr\i)po<f>oplv in N.T. means either "to fulfil," as in 2 Tim. iv. 5, 17, or, "to persuade fully," as
this ovroi fLovoi
is
On
ovrcpyoi
in
Rom.
iv.
21, ir\rjpo<f>oprfOU ori

It is
oW<ito? ioriv
xiv. 5, iv
txj)
read in Rom. xv. 13, in B FG, where the sense is "fill"; but the better attested reading is nXrfpwrai. The Rec. Text here has TrcirXifpw/AcW. See on Lk. L 1. iv wokti GcX^fum too ecoO. " In all the will of God " is not quite correct, yet we cannot say " every will of God." Lightfoot renders " in everything willed by God." The words are best connected with TeX. ical wcttX., not with ot^tc, as the order of the words shows. Trawl probably has reference to the variety of circumstances in which the Christian may find himself, with perhaps a hint at the contrast with the definite external precepts of the false
tfup
vofc n\rjpo<f>of)iTO}.
teachers.
302
orijfrt is

<rraB%r,
[IV. 13, 14
the reading offct'ACDGKLP and most mss. , Chrys. Theodoret. K # B 23 71 al , Euthal. (cod. Tisch.). Comp. Matt. ii. 9, xxvii. II, in both which passages 1 33 have tordfrij for the Rec i<mj. The passive is adopted by the critical editors in all three places.
BC
T-Xty>o0opwWK,
Tisch.).
ABCD*G
al. t
Syr- Hard,
marg., Euthal.
(cod.
TewXtfowfUvoi, most mss., Syr-Harcl. text, and Pesh. Arm., Chrys. Theodoret. As, however, wXypofopeur is sometimes used with the meaning "fill," the versions cannot be quoted with certainty for the latter reading, which probably slipped in as the more familiar and simpler word.
DKLP
18. |iopnip yap afrr$. The apostle confirms by his testimony what he has just said of Epaphras. on Ix iroXu> v6vov. " That he has much labour." novo* is not found elsewhere in N.T. except in the Apocalypse. It is, however, a common word for struggle in battle, and hence corresponds with the AycM' of the apostle himself, ii. 1, and with the <iyo>vio/ivos of The two words occur in juxtaposition in Plato, Phaedr. ver. 12. 247 B bOa St) iroVoc re koI dyoiv Itrgaros foxfi vpoKctTGt. voXiv tfrov, A B C P 80, Euthal. (cod. Tisch.), Old Lat Vulg. Goth.
fe(
Boh* Ann*
with most mss., Syr. (both), Chrys. Theodoret have xo\i>r f$}\or ; D* G, roXbr tc&wov. Five cursives have t60<* } and two (6 67s) d-ywro. No doubt the rarity of xArot in the N.T. is responsible for the variety of It is found in the Apocalypse only. reading.
Du
HXov voMv, Rec,

tf/.
KL
flirty
dfiK icai
rwv iv AaoBixcCf koI t&v iv 'icpairlXcu
Laodicea
and Hierapolis stood on opposite sides of the valley at a distance of about six miles from one another, and twice as far from From the conjunction of the three names here it Colossae. appears probable that Epaphras stood in the same relation, as evangelist, to the three, and also that they were threatened by the same dangers; as, indeed, their near neighbourhood and consequent frequent intercourse would suggest Compare ii 2.
"Luke the 14. doTrdtrrot upas Aookos 6 iarpos o ayairnros. Beyond question the evangelist, named physician, the beloved." It is interesting to find also 2 Tim. iv. 11 as well as Philem. 24. two of the evangelists in St Paul's company here. The reason of
his calling being specified may be that he was attending on St. Paul in his professional capacity. It has been observed that his
first appearance in company with St Paul, Acts xvi. 10, "nearly synchronises with an attack of the apostle's constitutional malady (Gal. iv. 13, 14), so that he may have joined him partly in a From the manner in which he professional capacity " (Lightfoot). is separated from the group in ver. 10 it is clear that he was a This is fatal, not only to the tradition that he was one Gentile. of the Seventy (which, indeed, is hardly consistent with the preface to his Gospel), but also to the conjecture that he was the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews. See on Lk. L 2, x. 1-16, xxiv. 13-32.
IV. 16]
PERSONAL SALUTATIONS
30*
Probably a contraction for Demetrius. Kal Atipas. It is remarkable that he is named without any epithet of commendaIn tion, which is the more striking as coming after 6 dvam/r^s. Philem. 24 he is named with Mark, Aristarchus, ana Luke as a owcpyo? of St Paul. But in 2 Tim. iv. 10 he is mentioned as Perhaps the having deserted St Paul, Ayairfjaas rov vw atwa. curt mention here foreshadows that desertion.
15. Ainr&nurtic Tods cV Aaooiiccia docX+oo?, icai Hvp+civ, koI rJjr
Nymphas (if this reading (or afrou) <KxXT)<naK. probably a short form of Nymphodorus ; cf. Artemas for Artemidorus, Zenas for Zenodorus (Tit iii. 12, 13), Olympa? for Olympiodorus (Rom. xvi. 15), and perhaps Lucas for Lucanus. rrpr kot oTkov, k.t.A., i.e. the Church that assembled in their house. The same expression occurs, Rom. xvi. 5 and 1 Cor. xvi. 19, of the house of Prisca and Aquila at Rome and at Ephesus Compare Acts xii 12. Separate respectively; also Philem. 2. buildings for the purpose of Christian worship seem not to be Bingham, Antiq. viil 1. 13, traced earlier than the third century. shows that special rooms were so set apart, but gives no instances Probst (Kirchliche Disaf>lin p. 181 f.) is of separate buildings.
kot
oticoK airr&v
is correct) is
by Lightfoot as affording similar negative evidence. It is curious that Chrysostom understands the expression to refer opa yovv ttGx Scurmo-i fiyav only to the household of Nymphas.
referred to
rov ay&pa,
c
is
yc
fj
oucia avrov iKK\yj(rta.
aMav
difficult
Alford, Lightfoot,
<*/.,
understand
i.
rf
it
as
62,
Alford compares Xen. Mem. referring to oc vtpl Nv/tâv. idv tic <f>avtpos yhnqrax kActttcdv . Tovrois OavaTQS Iotiv
2.
which
all
iii.
not parallel, for those belonging to that class.

is clearly
3.
7,
irpo<rflt
c.r.X.,
(Mttfotoa-np)
one of a class, and rovrott Lightfoot compares Xen. Anab. irpos tovs "EAAipw* fcrci o* fyyv?
is
{ty/uo,
iv. 5. 33, &rci 8* yXOov irpos XciptVoôv, KorcAo/AThese also are not parallel, since flavov koX Ikuvovs crK-qvovvra^. here, as in other languages, the force is called by the name of its
tywovTO,
and
commander. Hence Meyer says that the plural cannot without violence be referred to anything but " the brethren in Laodicea and Nymphas." He thinks, then, that by these brethren is meant a Church distinct from that of Laodicea, but in filial relation to it, and meeting in the same house. Lightfoot also suggests (as an
alternative
to his first-mentioned view) that
refer to
Laodicea" may
The
For the
the "brethren in a family of Colossians settled in Laodicea.
reading varies between cu/rwr, a6rov, and airrijs. plural, K A C P 5 9 *7 23 34 39 47 73 Boh. (wrongly quoted by Tisch. al. foroflroO, see Lightfoot), Arab. (Leipz.), Euthalius (cod. Tisch.). For atroO are 37 (cod. Leic.) nearly all cursives, Goth., Chrys. Theodoret (expressly), Ambrosiaster.
DGKL
For
afirrjt ,
B 67*.
" ejus," and
so both Syriac
The
Latin versions have the singular
In the
304
latter the
[Tv\ 16
gender would be Indicated only by a point The Pesh. is pointed making Nympha feminine (Numphe) and the suffix (corresponding to o&tqv or atrip) masculine. The Harclean, again, has the suffix feminine in the text, masculine in the margin. How the translator intended the proper name to be taken is uncertain ; it may be either masc or fern. Lightfoot thinks probably the latter. The Greek name is accented as feminine (Ntf/tôr) in B and Euthalius (cod. Tisch. ).
inconsistently,
Nv/tôy as a feminine name would be Doric, and the occurrence of such a form here is highly improbable, avnfc then, is probably a correction suggested by this misunderstanding of Nv/aôv. But it seems more probable that the scpbe who made the correction had avrov before him than aurw. avrw, again, might readily have been suggested to the mind of a copyist by his recollection of Rom. xvi. 5 and 1 Cor. xvL 19 assisted by the occurrence of &&\4><*fc just before.
aflrflt is adopted by Lachmann, Tregelles (margin), WH. f v. Soden, Weiss. NjV*0of oeing accentuated accordingly. afrOr, by Tischendorf, Alford, Meyer, Tregelles (text). afrroO, by De Wette (who designates airrSm "fclse and unmeaning "),
Ellicott
16. Koi Stok ArayraNrftfi irap* dfiiK i\ tirurroX^. Obviously the present Epistle, as Rom. xvi. 22, Tc/moc 6 ypcuf/as rip bnorokrjv'I Thess. V. 27, &vayvbxrOrjvaL rrp hrurroXrjv 2 Thess. iiL 14, && rij9 hrurroXrp, these latter verses being of the nature of a postscript voiâa-rc tra. tocciv, in the sense "take Cf. John xl 37. 19 care, is sometimes followed by oVu?, as in Herod. L 8, woi'cc okw iKwrfv tfciprcat yvfjurrjv : id. 209, wou okok breav ... fioi KaTaarrjoys tov iratScu So with arc, Xen. Cyrop. vi. 3. 18. Xva koi iv t$ Aoooik&hv iKuXnaif dKayiwtijj. See the similar direction I Thess. V. 27, foayvwrOfjvai rrpr hr. iraxn rot? docA.^01?. The present Ep. was to be read in the assembly of the Church, and a copy sent to Laodicea and similarly read there. Compare the address 2 Cor. i. 1, which implies the sending of copies to neighbouring Churches. aal t*|k Ik Aao&iKcia*. Chrysostom says that some understood this of a letter written from Laodicea to St Paul. The Syriacn Pesh. also renders "written from L. ; and so Theodore Mops., Theodoret, and many others, including Beza, a Lapide, Estius, and some recent commentators. But why should St Paul direct the Colossians to get from Laodicea the letter written to him, of which he could not assume even that the Laodiceans had retained a copy? and how would the letter of the Laodiceans edify the Colossians ? Moreover, koI v/acT? obviously implies that the Theophylact supLaodiceans were the receivers of the letter. poses the first Epistle to Timothy to be meant, which, according This subscripto the subscription, was written from Laodicea.
:
&
nr. le]
tion,
the epistle from laodicea

its
305
which was
indeed, probably owes
origin to the theory,
earlier
than Theophylact, and appears in the margin of the Philoxenian Syriac Other Epistles of St. Paul have been similarly said in some of the Versions to be " written from Laodicea " (see Lightfoot). It is fatal to all such hypotheses that St. Paul had not been at Laodicea before this time (ii. 1), and, even had he been there, had now been some time in prison, and therefore could not have written any letter recently from Laodicea. These hypotheses are obviously founded on the error that rj Ik ,w But this is not so. A, must mean "the letter written from 'L. When the article with a preposition expresses a substantival notion,
often proleptic, a construction which is called the attraction of prepositions (Jelf, 647), Thucyd. ii. 34, ddm-ovai rovs c* tup
it is
rroXifuav:
iii.
2 2, rprOovro oi Ik
tw Trvpyiav
<f>v\aKts; vi. 32, weirv-
Most of the instances, \oyto Sk Kal b oAA.0? o/uAos 6 Ik rrj^ yrjs. indeed, cited by Jelf, Lc. and others are with verbs implying motion, as in Luke xi. 13, xvi 26. Assuming, then, as certain that the Epistle was one written by St Paul to Laodicea, we have three alternatives to choose from. First, there is extant an Epistle actually bearing the title " To the Laodiceans." It is extant only in Latin, but must have been Of it Jerome says (Vir. III. 5): originally written in Greek. " legunt quidam et ad Laodicenses, sed ab omnibus exploditur." It is It is, indeed, abundantly condemned by internal evidence. a mere cento of Pauline phrases put together with no definite connexion or purpose, and absolutely destitute of any local allusion, except in the last line, which is obviously borrowed from " et facite legi Colosensibus et Colosthe verse before us, viz As Erasmus truly and strikingly expresses it: ensium vobis." " nihil habet Pauli praeter voculas aliquot ex caeteris ejus epistolis mendicatas. . . Non est cujusvis hominis Paulinum pectus effingere. Tonat, fulgurat, meras flammas loquitur Paulus. At haec, praeterquam quod brevissima est (about as long as this ch.
y :
Nullum argumentum efficacius . . jacet . esse Pauli quam ipsa epistola." It is found, however, in many copies of the Latin Bible from the sixth to the fifteenth century, and, as Lightfoot observes, for more than nine centuries it " hovered about the doors of the sacred canon, without either finding admission or being peremptorily excluded," until at the revival of learning it was finally condemned on all sides. The full account Latin text of the Epistle will be found on p. 308. of its history with a collation of the principal MSS., also a translation into Greek, will be found in Ligntfoot.
iv.),
quam
friget,
quam
persuaserit earn
non
We have no reason to Secondly, it may be a lost Epistle. question the possibility of St. Paul having written letters which have not come down to us (compare, perhaps, 1 Cor. v. 9) ; but in 20
306

we may
observe,
first,
[IV. 17
the present case
that the Epistle referred to
was one to which some importance was attached by St Paul himself, so that he himself directs that it be read publicly in two distinct Churches (for the passage justifies us in assuming that it was publicly read in Laodicea as well as Colossae) ; and, secondly, that in consequence of this direction not only must it have been
copied, but great publicity was, in fact, assured to it The Epistle to Philemon, which was in itself unimportant, and private, was not allowed by the Colossians to be lost, how much less an important public letter? Again, we know of three Epistles sent at this time to Asia Minor, namely, those to the Ephesians, to the Colossians, and to Philemon. It is best not to assume a fourth unless we are compelled to do so, which it will be seen we are not In any case it could hardly have been an Epistle addressed to the Laodiceans, since if it had been we should not have salutations to the Lao-
diceans in this Epistle, not to say that it would be called rrpr irpos Aao&xcas rather than rrjv Ik A. The third alternative is that the Epistle is one of those that we possess under another title. As early as the fourth century the claim was put forward on the part of the Epistle to the Hebrews by Philastrius, apparently from conjecture only, and one or two modern writers have adopted the same hypothesis. But in spite of some partial coincidences, it is really impossible to suppose these two Epistles to have been written at the same time by the same author to the same neighbourhood. The Epistle to Philemon has also been suggested, and Wieseler (ChronoL des Apost, Zeitalter, p. 450 rT.) speaks of this identification as scarcely open to doubt; but that Epistle is entirely private, and the delicacy of its appeal would be destroyed if St Paul directed it to be read in public There remains die Epistle to the Ephesians, which we know to have been written about the same time as the Epistle to the Colossians, and conveyed by the same messenger, and which, on quite distinct grounds, is, with high probability, regarded as a circular letter (see Introduction). Ira koI fljieis tvayvwr*. " See that ye also read." It would be
rather
awkward
to
may be
<tcvtjt
taken independently, as in
:
Iva /xv^/iovcvto/icv
(John
ix.
on ironware It tut vnax^v 2 Cor. viii. 7, Iva #cot tv ravrg t x<*PiTt *"V*0"3; 2 Thess. iiL 9 ; 1 John ii. 19 are not quite
this Iva
make
depend
directly
ii.
GaL
10, fwvov
parallel).
&ra* is frequently used by classical writers in a similar manner. Here, however, as wonj<raT has just preceded followed by Tva, it is perhaps more natural to understand before this iva, " see that," taken out of voiyo-art by a sort of zeugma. Archippus, called by St Paul his 17. ital ctva-rc *Apx"r*-
IV. 18]
FINAL SALUTATION
307
orwrrpaTiwn^ (Philem. 2), was probably a son of Philemon, and a leading presbyter at Colossae (to suppose him to be a regular * bishop would be an anachronism), or perhaps an " evangelist (Eph. iv. n). Lightfoot thinks it more probable that he resided at Laodicea (of which place the Apostolic Constitutions make him bishop), and accounts thus for St Paul not addressing him Contrast the direct address, Phil iv. 3. But there the directly. request addressed to the " true yokefellow " is a special one ; here it is general, and the form adopted gives it an official character which is natural and suitable ; in fact, a direct address would have the appearance of harshness and discourtesy to the Colossians, and this the more the greater the authority he possessed. Would not this be the impression inevitably produced, if after animadverting on the heretical teaching in Colossae, the apostle had added, "and thou, see that thou fulfil thy office"? pX&rc, "look to"; compare 1 Cor. L 26, /JXcitctc rijv Kkyatv In Phil. iiL 2, vfuov: x. 1 8, /JAcircTt rbv 'laparjk Kara aapK*. pxhrm rov$ fewas, k.t.A., the idea is of being on one's watch
(against).
tV SiaKonar. Clearly some office more important than the diaconate, properly so called, is intended here. So 2 Tim. iv. 5, rip Statcoviav crov ir\rjpo<f>6p7}<rov compare Acts xii. 25, irXrjpioaavTs rrpf SiaKoviav (of a special mission to Jerusalem). The qualification iv Kvpua probably 4}? irapAaPcs iv Kopiw. belongs both to the person and to the reception of the office ; as living in the Lord, he received it, and he received it as committed to him in the service of the Lord For the construction, compare 2 John 8 Xva aM\v v\i|pois. and for the sense, 2 Tim. iv. 5 quoted above. The admonition reminds us, indeed, of the admonitions to Timothy and Titus. If Archippus was a young man, and recently appointed to his office, it would be a natural reminder of its greatness and its difficulty ; and there is no need to suppose that a covert censure on his previous laxity is implied. 18. A dontKTjite tq 4|tjj x"pt rHuJXou- 1 Cor. xvL 21 ; 2 Thess. iiL 17. In the latter passage St Paul states that this was his usual custom. pajjAOKfotW fiou tGk ScapiiK. An appeal, touching in its brevity,
:
and one which could not proceed from an imitator. He does not ask specially for their prayers, their sympathy, that they should spare him further anxiety, or the like ; but all these are included in the request that they " were ever to keep before them the fact that one who so deeply cared for them, and loved them, and to whom their perils of false doctrine occasioned such anxiety, was a prisoner in chains," Alford; who adds, "when we read of 'his chains we should not forget that they moved over the paper as
'
308
he wrote.
request.
[IV. 18
His hand was chained to the soldier that kept him." This circumstance perhaps explains the singular abruptness of the
ftp*"* Th*s short form of benediction is used also 21 and 2 Tim. iv. 22. 17 \dpLs used thus absolutely occurs only in the later Epistles. In the earlier it is defined by the addition of rov Kvpiov [jfjuLv] 'Irjo-ov [Xpurrov].
4 X*P4* H**
in i
Tim.
vi.
'AM*
(both),
is
added in K
DKLP
and most mss., d e
f Vulg. Goth. Syr.
Boh. etc. Omitted in K #
A BC FG 17 67*, gal.
etc.), to
;
For the and so Syr.
subscription,
KaWram, B" DFGLP,

(both)
KABCDGLPo/.
which
have rpto KoXaovaeu (or B add &t6 /mm* (fan A),

TifturoG col
but Boh. has "scripta Athenis."
Some
'Onpai/toi;.
later authorities,
KL
For other
varieties
and many cursives, add && and additions, see TischendorC
Here follows the text of the spurious Epistle from a the Library of Trinity College, Dublin.
MS.
in
Ad
Laodicenses.
Faulus Apostolus non ab hominibus neque per hominem ; sed per Jhesum Christum fratribus qui sunt Laodicie. Gratia vobis et pax a Deo patre nostro et Domino Jhesu Christo. Gratias ago Deo meo per omnem orationem meam quod permanentes estis in eo et perseverantes in operibus eius, pro* missum expectantes in die iudicii. Neque destituant vos quorundam vaniloquia insinuantium, ut vos avertant a veritate evangelii quod a me praedicatur etsi faciet Deus ut qui sunt ex me ad perfectum veritatis evangelii et servientes et facientes benignitatem operum salutis vite eterne. Et nunc palam sunt vobis vincla mea quae patior in Christo quibus laetor et gaudeo et hoc mihi est ad salutem perpetuam quod ipsum factum orationibus vestris et administrante Spiritu Sancto, sive per vitam sive per mortem, est enim michi vivere vita in Christo et raori gaudium et in id ipsum vobis faciet misericordiam suam ut eandem dilectionem habeatis Ergo dilectissimi ut audistis praesentia mei, ita et sitis unanimes. retinete et facite in timore Dei et erit vobis vita eterna, est enim
facitis et
Deus qui operatur in vobis et facite sine retractu quecumque quod est [reliquum] dilectissimi gaudete in Christo et
praecavete sordidos
m lucro.
Omnes
apud
Deum
et estote firmi in sensu Christi et
et vera et pudica et iusta et Salutant et accepistis in corde retinete et erat [sic] vobis pax. vos sancti. Gratia Domini nostri Jhesu cum spiritu vestro. Et
facite legi epistolam colosenciura vobis.
palam quae Integra sunt amabilia facite, et quae audistis

sint petitiones vestre
INDEX TO THE NOTES.

I.
Subjects
and Names.
Article, 51, 211, 291, Ix, x.
of, 58, 135. generic, 274. Asceticism of a later age, 273. Athanasius, 27, 94, 213, 268, 269. Athenaeus, 57, 59, 89. Atonement, the, 146. Augustine, St., 39, 162, 208, 223,
Aboth, 42.
Abstract for concrete collective, 41.
plural, 32. Acta Fault et Ptiri, 261.
absence
TAomae, 165.
Aelian, 20, 25. Aeons, lvL Aeschines, 34, 89, 151, 242. Aeschylus, 69, 89, 101, 128, 136, 286. Affections, 278. Afflictions of Christ," 23a Alexander, Abp., 222. Alford on character of Ep. to Eph.,
xi ; Comm. passim. Analogy, 172. Angelology, 33, 215. Angels of the law, 260. Anger whether always unlawful, 14a Antoninus, 40, 45, 160. Apocalypse, relation to Eph., xxviii.
230, 242, 244, 265. *67 68t *73Ausonius, 16.
to Col., lix. Aorist, 48, 49, 215, 225, 279, 282, 283. infinitive, 13611.
participle, 257.
16, 57, 136, 144, MS. 184, 219, 243, 249, 267, 268, 283, xxiu Apollonius, 153. Apostles, 72, 117. Apostolic Constitutions, 307. Archippus, 306. Arians, 2x3. Aristaenetus, 246. Arjstarchus, 147, 299. Aristophanes, 44, 155. Aristotle, 14,18, 29,36,44,96,149,161, 203, 217, 224, 242, 256, 272, 276. Arrian, 64, 143-
Baptism, infant, 176. Barnabas, Ep., 1 1, 26, 300, L Basil* St, 93, 162, 212, 270, L Baur, 40, 82, xiv, livsqq. 'Being in," 128. Bengel s maxim, Proclive scriptioni praestat ardua, xlv. remark, saepe vis modi, etc, 14a Bentley, 267. Bernhardy, 64, 89.
Bingham, 303. Bishops' Bible, 138. Bisping, 230.

Blaikie, 164. Bloomfield, 164.
Apocrypha,
'Body " not= " totality, Bugenhagen, 167.
25a
Building, the, 73. Bullinger, 152. Butler, Bp., 95, 140, 153.
Axtemidonis, 154.
SUV
Caesarea, whether Eph. written from, XXX. Captivity is captive led," 113. Cerinthus, xlix, liv. Chains, St. Paul's, 189, 307. Charles, Mr., 241.
3io
INDEX TO THE NOTES

Ephesians, relation to CoL, xxiii ; to I Pet, xxiv; to Heb., xxvi; to Apocalyse, xxviii.
"Children of wrath," 44. Christ as sacrifice, 147.

whether
231.
afflicted in
His people,
whether the mystery of God, 239. Christology of Ep. to Eph., audi. Chrysostom on character of Ep. to Eph., xiii ; Comm. passim,
Cicero, 14, 16, 44. 64, 131. X3*t 255, 286, 289. Ciliasm, supposed, 265. Circumcision, spiritual, 57, 251. Clemens Alex., 10, 21, 39, 161, 209,
xii,
Ephrem Syrus, 33. Epictetus, 48, 136. Epiphanius, 275, xiii, liv.
Erasmus,
xlix,
&
Eratosthenes, 265. Essenes, 247, 273.

Estius, iv
;
Comm. passim.
Eubulus, 89.
Eucharist, 172. Euripides, 35, 69, 89, 144, 268, 293. Eusebius, 93, xxxi, xlviL Eustathius, 265. Euthymius, 102. Evangelists, 118. Ewald, II, III, 250, vffi, xi&. Excitement, spiritual, 162.
L
viii.
Clemens Rom.,
Cockerell, xlix.
Coleridge on Eph,, xhr. Colossae, xlviL Colossian heresy, xlviiL Colossians had not heard St Paul, 238. Colossians, relation of Ep. to Eph.,
Conybeare, 255,
26a
222.
Coverdale, 273. Covetousness, 133. Creature, reconciliation
ofj
Davenant, 221, 241, 264.

Delitzsch, 139. Demas, 303.
" Father of, 27. Field, Dr., 143, 266. Findlay, 164. Firstborn of all creation, 21 1. History of the interpretation, 213. Forgiveness in Christ, 146. Foundation of apostles and prophets, 271. Fritzsche, 9. 34, 35, 48, 54, 71, 104. 106, 152, ito, 161, 178, 237.
.
Future with "see lest," 246.

Galen, 126, 271, 276. " Genitive of reference, M 21 1.
Gnostics, 13, 40, 182, 209, 241, 247, xlix ; on Gnostic conceptions in Col., Ivsq. " Going off at a word," 62, xxii.
Demiurge, liv. Demosthenes, 12, 34, 53. 9 ***> 145,

187, 202, 207, 218, 229, 243, 258, 265, 266, 286, 292, 293. Descent into hell, 115. De Wette on language of Eph., xr.
DidacMt vw.
Dio
Cassias, 229. Diodarus, 12, 177, 275.
Diogenes Laertius, 42, 144, *3Q,
xlix.
ia modem, 26, 5a Gregory Nac, 144.

Grace, Greek,
Dionysius Halic., 285. Dionysius (pseudo), 33. Dispensation of the grace of God, 79.
Dissen, 149. Dobree, 101.
Gregory Nyss., 89.
Grimm, 2a Grotius on Ep
to Eph., xiv
Hammond,
133, 223.
Earthquakes in Lycus Valley, xxxL Element" or "sphere," 108, 122,

128.
Hausrath, xxiv. Heavens, 116. things in, 222. Heavenly powers, 32.
Enoch, Book of, 17, 241, 248. Epaphras, 199, 298, 300, 302, xlviiL
Ephesians, to whom written, i, 25, 78. external evidence of genuineness,
ix.
Hebrews, Ep. to, xxvL Hebraism supposed, 40, 42, 117, 150,
223, 2661 Heliodorus, 246. Hermann, 48, 14X, Hennas, xiL Hermes, 224.
iv.
objections from language, riv. from line of thought, xix.
L SUBJECTS AMD NAMES

Herodian, 288L Herodotus, 94, 129, 148, 183,
275, **viL
Le Gere,
186,
Hesychius, 61, 98, 131, 266. Hierapolis, 237, 302, xlix Hierarchy, celestial, 33.
Hilary, 258. Hilgenfeld, 269, xiv. Hippocrates, 20, 14a, 272. 18J, > Hippolytus, 214, Hitag, 139. Hofinann, 176, 233. Holtzmann, 410, 2x6, ail, xfcr xxlii,
267. Life of God, 13a. n Lightfoot, " Biblical Essays, v, Liturgy, whether quoted, 158.
xiii.
Liturgies, 164. Locke, 19, 88. " Lower parts of the earth," 115. Lucian, 12, 36, 98, 248, 277, 286.
*&
Luke, 302. Lycus Valley, natural phenomena, xlix, Churches o xlviii.

Lysias, 224, 275,
li,
a/.
Mahaffy, Dr. ,
lii, liii.
Holy Apostles," 82. Homer, n, 41, 53.
41
Hope and
74. 186, 277, 279. love, 190. Hort, 80, 136, iv, xx, xxii,
"S.
xxxL
147.
Malahs,85. Mangold, xiii, xxx.
Maraon, 227,
Mark, 30a
ii, xiii,
1L
Marcosians, 13, 209.
Humility, 105.
Ignatius, 246, 284, 287, viii " Imitators of God," 146. " Incidental revelation," 33.
Marriage; why called a ment," 175.
"Sacra-
zL
Mayerhofi; h. Metaphors, mixture
Middle
" In
of, 97, 119, 245. voice, x8, 38, 156, 272.
the Lord," 103.
Infinitive of end, 317. of object, 297, 298
Middleton, 153. Milligan, Dr., viL Milton, 33.
Irenaeus, 13. Isaeus, 226. Isidore of Pelusium, 212. Isocrates, 170, 265.
"Itsaith," 111,156.
&,
eremiah, yi, 10, 57. ewish notions, no, 142, 247, 298. erome, xxxi ; Comm. fassim. ohn St, Gospel of; its relation to
305.
Monro, Homeric Gram., 78. MilUer, Max, 285. Muratorian Canon, v, IL "Mystery," 15. Mystery of God, 230. Mysteries, words supposed borrowed from, 236.
to
be
Name, " in the name
of," 163.
Eph., xx viii. "Joint," ambiguity of, 125. Josephus, 12,4$, 121, 247, 257, 260,
9 xlviii.
Neander, 247, Nemesius, 269. Nominative, irregular, 96.
Nympha or Nymphas,
Onesimus, 299. Onthovius, 103.
303.
Judaic element in Colossian Church,

xlviii.
Jttlicher, xiv, xvi,
lii.
Original sin, 45. Origen on the address
of Ep.
to
Justin, 93, 212.
Juvenal, 255.
Eph., ii. on redemption, 13.
Kepler, 248. Kiene, x.
on angels, 33. a peculiar reading of his, 263.

Paley, 189, xx. Pandects, 68. " Paradox of the Crucifixion," 262. Participle, paraphrases with, 275. Paul, St. , his style, a singularity of, xxL Pearson, Bp., 109, x. Perfect tense, 26.
Kneeling in prayer, 93.

Kilhl, 248.
Labour, Christian, object
of, 142.
Laodicea, Council of, 268. Epistle from, 237, 302, 34 "* v, vii, xii,a
312
Perowne, Bp.,
Persians, 148.
INDEX TO THE NOTES

26a
Schleiermacher, 214, 219, xiiL Scholefield, 233. Schottgen, 147, 151, 182, 25 1. Schott, xxvii. Schwegler, xiv. Scythians, 286. Self-love, 171 Seneca, 178.
Seufert, xxvi.
Philemon, Ep. to, lvii, lviii. Philippians, Ep. to, lvii, lviii.
Philo, 12, 14, 35, 36, 44, 45, 76, 96, 203, 210, 214, 217, 246, 259, 264, 268, 289, 293, 296. Philostratus, 12a Photius, 129, 229, 266.
Phrynichus, 69, 73, 84. Pindar, 31, 149.

Plato, 12, 14, 16, 26, 29, 53, 58, 59, 64, 83. 90, 95. 1*4, 149, 151. *79
215, 217, 226, 236, 242, 243, 256, 260, 264, 275, 279, 283. Plautus, 149, 285.
Pliny, xlvii Plutarch, II,
12, 14, 38, 41, 107, 141, 143. 149, 161, 170, 218, 243, 248, 258, 262, 293, 298. Platonic doctrine of Ideas, 285. Polyaenus, 183. Polybius, 12, 39, 120, 122, 128, 131, 136, I55i l6o l8l i82 272, 283.
Seventy (LXX), the fiUladous mode of reference to, 14. Seventy, the, termed apostles, 1x7. Shadow of things to come, 264. Shakespeare, 11, 15.
Simplicius, 288.
Sophocles, 58, 59, 84, 97, 170, 260, 268. Spitta, 248. Stobaeus, 165.
Stoics, 144.
Strabo, xlviL Suidas, 36. Subject, change Sumner, 276.
of,
257.
Polycarp, 133, 139, xL
Svoboda,
xlix.
Martyrdom
of, 160.
Present tense, 73.

Principalities, 88, 259.
Probst, 303. " Proclivi scriptioni," etc, xlv. "Prophesy," io, 117. Pythagoreans, 42, 141, 288.
Quintilian, 18.
Tacitus, 40, 289, xxxL Targum, 112. Taylor, Dr. C, 270.
Tenses, 73, 136, 144, 244, 279, 284. Tertullian, 117, 219, 220, 226, ii, 1. Testaments of the XII. Patriarchs, 33, 42, 145, 182, 216, 267.
Testamentum Salomcms% 148.

Themistius, 273. Theophrastus, 203. Thrones, etc., 216. Thucydides, 128, 186, 224, 275, 305. Toup, 267. Trench, 104, 106, 133, 161, 249.
Quotations from O.T., xxo, 157.
Rabbinic views, 42, 60, 142,
151, 182, 210. Prof., 159, xlviii Rashi, 113. Reading, the more difficult, xlv. Reconciliation of things in heaven, 222.
Ramsay,
Trophimus, 61. " Truth as it is in Jesus," 135.

Tychicus, 190, 298.
Ussher,
Usteri,
vi.
xiii.
Reiche, 114, 172, 290, 292, Reiske, 217.
viii.
Renan,
Reuss,
rvi.
li, lviii.
" Right hand of God," 32. Ritschl, 12, 223, 248, 26a
Robertson (Arch. ), xv, xvi. Rosetta Stone, 261. ' Rudiments of the world," 247.
Sacrificial
Vail of the Court of Gentiles, 61. Valentinians, xii, Ivi. Virtue, threefold division, 153. Vitringa, 32.
Weiss on " in Christ,"

words, 227.
5.
Westcott on Heb. cited, 12.
Salmon, Dr., xxvi, xxvii, lii, lviii. Sanday and Headkm, 78, 174.
Scaliger, 9.
on St John
Wetstein, 288,0/.
215,
cited, 13.
262,
277,
286,
II.
GREEK WORDS
313
Wieseler, 306. Winer, 26, 100, 103, 228, 229, 255.
129, 134, 145, *5o, 179. 242, 243, 273, 303. *lTOf Ik
Xenophon, 35, 36, 45, 6i t 83, 84,
Zonaras, 266^ 268.
II.
Greek Words.
E. stands for Ephesians,
C for Colossians.
dya$u*6rqt E.
0*710*,
v. 9.
E. L 2, iL 19. &0ot, E. ii. 12. Mvfufr, lit 21. aUrxpoXoyla, C. iiL 8. ater, E. ii. 2. dXat, C. iv. 6. dXitfetfeir, E. iv. 15. dXAd, E. v. 24 ; ii. 5. dXwrit, E. vi 2a a>w/i0f, E. i. 4, v. 27 ; L 22. dwi-, in compos., E. L 10, iv. 23. drajccuroCr, C. iii. xa &*aK<pd\cuoQ<r6ai t E. i. ia draarpoî), E. iv. 22. driver, E. v. 4 ; C. iii. 18. dmraTXrjpeOr, C. L 24. drraTMoffit, C. iii. 24. d>ri-, in compos., C. i. 24. drrl ro&rov, E. v. 31. dv-ex&tarftu, C. ii. 15, iii. 9. &TMvfftf9 C. iL II. drf)\KoTfuu>fUwoi t E. ii. 12, iv. 18; C. L 21. drXorip, E. vi. 5 ; C. iii. 22. dwo$vijaKtp dw69 C. ii. 20. &ToicaTaXkdff<rcw t E. ii 16 ; C. i. 20,
C ppaficfoir, C
pdpPapoi, C. iii. 1 1. pkhrciw, iv. 17. Pofcofuu, E. L II.

iii
and see on
ii.
18
ApOra, C. IL 15.
ytnfOipHUi E. 11L 7* yirdxrKtw, pregnant, E. Trufcrtf, C. iL 3.
iii.
19.
Wfif,
iv. 3.
foiyHarlot*, iL 15. iv. II. Wxeirôi, &d/3o\ot, E. iv. 27.
C 6WoWa, C
ftdroca,
iv. 17.
E.
ii.
3.
fcoWiraXJa, C. ii 22. dUauoSy C. iv. I.
Mypa, E. iL 15 ; C. iL 14. toypaTlfrw, C. iL 2a *da, E. L 17.

*7/*, E. v. 14. ifcXoOprpKela, C. iL 23. cf7, Introd. iv ; E. iii 2, tUrj, C. iii 18. ffccfr, C. i. I.
ctroi e/f,
iv. 21.
22. d**6*pv0or, C. ii. J. dVoXfo/XMrct, E. L 7,

i.
C.
ii.
22.
1 4, iv.
30 ; C.
14.
ii.
dw6xpv<rity C.
d/>pa/9<&r,
22.
E. L 2a tf*X*ye<r0<u, E. L 4. i\axi<rr6rpott E. iii. 8. A^Txew, E. v. II, 13.

clfrrfrorroieir,
E. L 14. dpx^> E. i. 21 ; C. i. 18, ii. dpxai, E. iii 10, vL 12 ; C.
ia
i.
C. iL 18. fr with dative, whether of the

ifxparitetp,
ii.
" ele-
16,
E. iv. ic> E. v. 18. d^citta, C. ii 23. a^tarct, E. L 7. dî), E.iv. 16; CiL 19. aVfeprfa, E. vL 24.
ISdff\ytla t
dwWa,
ment, or sphere," E. iv. 4, 14, 17. Mpytia, E. l 19. In, C. iiL II. gouoJo, E. L 21 ) roO oVpof, iL 2 roO raorovt. C. L 13. gourfcu, E. iii 10, vi 12 ; L 16,
iL 15.
$,
B. 12.
ol
ffr , C.
iv. 5.
pdvrtfM** /fcwnrsrfi,,
Art, with dative,
Hiyi9ib*Kiwt
C L 6.
E. iL xa
34
4wlyr<#ntt
INDEX TO THE NOTES
C L C>
C. iL 10.
fl.
Myw *xr, C. iL
\vrpoQr, see
/uupoft/jifo,
toXWlî
on E. L
E.
ir.
23. 6>
faxopvyl** E. hr. id. troucodofutr, E. iL 2Q. iwovpdnot, E. L 3, 20,
2}
11, iiL
6* in. io,
12.
vL
12.
ipydfatou,
ipyiurla,
iii.
23.
E.
ifxBltnw,
tddpeoTot,
riforffr,
it. 19.
iiL 21.
JroyuxWa, E. vL 15.
/nprdpofiM, with infin., E. ir. 17. liarwAmfl, E. ir. 17. jrfyat, not = English "great," E. t. 32. jrfr, absent, E. v. 8. /Jpot, 4* lUon, C. iL 16.
jrirot, to fiiffov,
C L 19.
E.
t.
ia
C iL
14.
rifarla, E. L J, 9. riXflTtrfe, E. I 3. ffrptMrtXia, E. v. 4. jJXtt/M^Tt>, E. L 16.
rixajwrfa, E. v. 4 ;
ctixapiaTW,
fetytft,
C L 21.
18.
G iL
lucifrax09* E. iL 14. M?M, M^f. E. ir. 27. pontf, C. iiL 13. /ttvriiptor, E. L 9, iiL 3? 4, 9, L 26,27, u. 2. 19;
a
fi.
32,
7, iv. 2.
iii.
15.
rtxpfe,
tfrot,
E.
1.
with gen., E. iL 12.
M, E. iv.
0Aw,
ofoibt,
E.iL
19.
fXurfa, E. ir. 13.
Icodo/i^,
otaorojila,
E. iL 21. E. L 10 ; Introd. xvfl.
C iL 18. fafays C. iL Q. 21. fliyyaVeir, C 6piai*p*fa* C 15.

eiku*
fr,
,
E. L xx.
Jpo/tdfeir,
li.
E. L 21. E. L 21, iiL 15. tafoff, E. T. 24. &mt, E. iiL 13, iv. 19, vL 1;
tfro/ia,
iv.
ii.
XX.
fvria,
tra,
E.T.
fi.
2.
E.
9;
O0TWf, E. V. 28. tyfaX/MriouXftay E.
vL 6
iiL 22.
L 19
position, E.
iiL 18.
iv. I* tamp, J*Xfc.E.Ll9.
rdfot, iii. 5. raroupyla, E. hr. 14.

wupaffaXefr, E. iv. I, vL 22. rapaAo'yJfefffai, C. ii. 4.
E. L 15. cai, special use of, E.

*a**
xaip6tt E.
M,
wapdwrufm, E. L
7, iL I
21, v. 18
C.
L xa
*ard, E. iv. 24. tara/tyM/tabus

Karafrrifffiit,
C iL
;
rapcurnjaai, E. v. 27 ; waprjyopiat C. iv. II. rdpot*ot, E. iL 19. TapopyuTfdtt, E. vi. 4.
C iL C L 22.
;
13.
18.
rappipla, E. iiL
IS-
12,
vi.
vL 19
C
iii.
iL
E.
iv. 12.
carocjrefr,
E.
iiL 1 7
C. L I0>
npprptdfaOcu, E.
ran}/>,
2a
ii.
*cre/</3arftffU',
?C
iL 18.
r&t, without article, E.
21,
15.
Kkriporofda,
*X%>i, KXypoQw, E. L XX. coptfe*fo, E. vL 8.
Cil
C. iL 24.
E.
iv. 17.
Torocd, E. iiL 15. rcpf and *W/, E. vi. 18.

wrr\itfxxpOfnjfjJr<K t
ftrtftir,
jrrfot,
C iL X0> E. L 19. Kpl*w C iL E. iL 10; C. L C L 15.

xparctr,
icpdrot,
t
KOfffiOKp&TVp, E.
vL
12.
repiToreir Ir, E.
wepiTolrfffit,
ii.
C. iv. 12. iiL 2;
7.
16.
16.
Aiym, E.
iv. 8, v. 14.
E. i. 14. viOarakoyla, C. ii. 4. Tucpalre<rO<u t C. iii. 19. rurrif ^r, E. i. I. rXtorc((a, E. iv. 19, v. 3; wXijpoOfMewos, E. i. 13. TXypoOr rAr Uyor, C. L 25.
iii.
5.
III.
LATIN WORDS
xa
avfifwrrijt, Introd.
315
xi
1 6.
vXqpofo&u Jr, E. v. 18 w\ifpoôpev9 C. iv. 12. wkqpoipopta, C. ii. 2.

tXi>/w/4o,
ii.
rvratxiu&vrof,
Civ. ia
;
ffvrappokoyttr, E. iv.
i.
10, 23, iii 19, ir.
13
C. i 19, ii 9. TXrpftorij, C. ii. 23. rXofartor, C. iii. 10. rXoGra, E.L 7 ; C. L 27 ; Introd. xxi rpev/iarurfe, E. i 3, vi 12. tomi*, E. iii IX. roictr vptfcaw, E. iii. 12. wolrjfiOy E. iL xa woift^, E. ir. xi. voXirtfo, E. ii 12. raXinrofaXot, E. iii ia vpcvgnto dX&ret, E. vi 20 ; Introd. nrii wporroiftd^tPt E. ii ia rp6i, C. ii 23. wp6t 6, E. iii. 4. wpoaaytrffi, E. ii 18, iii 12. vpoetvxji and $67*11, E. vi 18. wpoafopd, E. v. 2. rp*rroXiâ, E. vi 9 5 C. iii 25. wpontfaw, i 18.
vwtoapto, E. iv. 16 w*pv6s, C. iv. II. rfretrct, C. L 9.

rfyia,
fftaftaTtK&t,
C ii
19.
C i 22, ii II, 17. C ii 9.

ii.
rttfit,
C.
5.
rarcu'o^pofft'rif,
E.
ir. 2.
ri 9 E. iii. 18. WXctof, i. 28,

n/i^,
Tit,
C C ii 23.
iv. 12.
with partidp. and
article,
C ii 8.
iii 16. E. t. 19; ii 14. fcrewrfot,

0/irot,
(trip
brtfh,
and rcpf, E. vi. 18. compounds with, E. fcro/iarj, C. i II.
iii
2a
fferepoGr,
hr. 4.
J
wpCrros,
E.TL1
0are/&r0<u, E. v. 13 frkoaodUa, C. ii 8. fpaypoi, E. ii 14.
C i 26,
iii 4.
wporrdroxot, C. i 15, 18. wdpuxrit, E. It. 18.
4>p6*v> E. i 8. fttra, E. ii 3.
Mpa, E.
Itf-ofr,
t. 26.
iii 18.
Xa>t, E.
i.
6;
E.
rarpfe, E.
fofVJa,
Iv.
29.
E.i8,i7;Ci9,
*vkiyxr*
tfrovftdfeii',
u.3.
Xo^ktoOf, E. i 6. Xeip^ypoyVir, ii 14. Xpe(a, E. iv. 2C> X^t, E. ii 12.

âX/iot, E. v. 10
r^t tffarffcu,
;
G iii 16, C
iv.
6,*/.
iii 12.
iv. 3.
E.
crepfo/ui, C.
rrijiraiy
fi.
5.
ir. 12.
iii
ia
ill.
9.
C ii 8. wXaytayttr, C ii
rroixetd,
^v/ifitfiifw,
E. vi II, 13; C.
8.
fJltf. * ifac*.
4*4, E. v. 19;
fc Ctof
E.
iv. 25.
E. vi 6 ;
Iii 23.
E.
ir. 16.
iii
ia
III.
aedificatcruu% 23a arbitrium, 289. Mtua txemplarist 214.
Latin Words.
hixuria% i6l.
miorobgus, 149.
satisfactoruU)
ckirographum % 251. jW*atf9 i47.
2JOk
ttrbaniUu, 149.
ghe $uUttmtiatml
" A decided advance on
Critical
ommcntarg.
all other commentaries."
The Outlook.
DEUTERONOMY.
By
the Rev. S. R. DRIVER, D.D.,
Regius Professor of Hebrew, and Canon of Christ Church, Oxford.
Crown 8vo.
Net* $3.00.
"No one could be better qualified than Professor Driver to write a critical and exegetical commentary on Deuteronomy. His previous works are authorities in all the departments involved; the grammar and lexicon of the Hebrew language, the lower and higher criticism, as well as exegesis and Biblical theology; ... the interpretation in this commentary is careful and sober in the main. A wealth of historical, geographical, and philological information illustrates and elucidates both the narrative and the discourses. Valuable, though The Congregationalism concise, excursuses are often given."
at last a really critical Old Testament commentary upon a portion of the Pentateuch, and especially one of such merit. This I find superior to any other Commentary in any language upon DeuterProfessor . L. Curtis, of Yale University. onomy."
It is
a pleasure to see
in English
accuracy, and
"This volume of Professor Driver's is marked by his well-known care and it will be a great boon to every one who wishes to acquire a
of Deuteronomy, and their significance for the development of Old Tes-
thorough knowledge, either of the Hebrew language, or of the contents of the
Book
tament thought
The author
finds
scope for displaying his well-known wide
and accurate knowledge, and delicate appreciation of the genius of the Hebrew language, and his readers are supplied with many carefully conHe is at his best in the detailed structed lists of words and expressions. London Athenaum, examination of the text."
" It must be said that
every page there
ture,
is
this
work
is
bound
to take rank
among
the best comit
mentaries in any language on the important book with which
deals.
On
abundant evidence of a scholarly knowledge of the

to
litera-
students."
and of the most painstaking care The Lutheran Churchman.
make
the book useful to thorough
"The deep and

wishes for solid
stance, considered with care, insight,
Deuteronomy are, in every inand critical acumen. The student who information, or a knowledge of method and temper of the
difficult
questions raised by
new
criticism, will find
advantage in consulting the pages of Dr. Driver."
Zion^t Herald.
$U* QuttvnntlavMl
" We beKeve
trttical
Commentary.
this series to be
9 of epoch-making importance' The N. Y. Evangelist.
JUDGES.
By
Dr.
GEORGE FOOT MOORE,

in
Professor of
Hebrew
Andover Theological Seminary.
Crown 8vo.
"The
Net* $3.00.
typographical execution of this handsome volume
Professor C. H. Toy, 0/ Harvard University.
scholarly character of the contents,
is worthy of the and higher praise could not be given it."
"This work represents the latest results of 'Scientific Biblical Scholarship,' and as such has the greatest value for the purely critical student, especially on The Church Standard. the side of textual and literary criticism."
" Professor Moore has more than sustained his scholarly reputation in this
work, which gives us for the
excelled, if indeed
first
time in English a commentary on Judges not
equalled, in any language of the world."
Professor
and by
L.
W. Batten, of P. E.
M Although a
critical
Divinity School, Philadelphia.

this
commentary,
it
work has
i*s
practical uses,
admirably adapted to the wants of aU thoughtful students of the Scriptures. Indeed, with the other books of the
its
divisions,
headlines, etc.,
is
series,
men."
Portland Zion's Herald.

its
it
is
sure to find
its
way
into the
hands of pastors and scholarly
lay-
" Like
those whose
it
treats
warmly welcomed whilst to means of securing up-to-date information on the subject of which are limited, it is simply invaluable." Edinburgh Scotsman.
predecessors, this volume will be
an atmosphere of scholarly interest and indifference to dogmatism and controversy, which is at least refreshing. ... It is a noble
is
The work
done
in
and influences that controlled the period of the Judges, and a model of what a historical commentary, with a practical end in view should be." The Independent.
introduction to the moral forces, ideas,
critical
is marked by a clear and forcible style, by scholarly research, by acumen, by extensive reading, and by evident familiarity with the Hebrew. Many of the comments and suggestions are valuable, while the
is
"The work
index at the close
serviceable and satisfactory."
Philadelphia Presbyterian.
" This volume sustains the reputation of the series for accurate and wide
scholarship given in clear
find delight in the perusal of this admirable
and strong English, ... the scholarly reader will commentary." Zion's Herald.
tfc
** Richly
Jftfetnatfoittf Crfticof
Commentary.
helpful to scholar*
and minuter*."The Presbyterian Banner.
The Books
BY
of
Samuel
in
REV.
HENRY PRESERVED SMITH.

and Interpretation
Amherst
CoBege,
Professor of Biblical History
Crown 8vo, Net
$3.00.
"Professor Smith's Commentary will for some time be the standard work on Samuel, and we heartily congratulate him on scholarly work s\ The Athenaum. faithfully accomplished."
"It
Greek.
is
both
It
critical and exegetical, and deals with original Hebrew and shows painstaking diligence and considerable research. " The
Presbyterian.
" The
style is clear
and
forcible
and sustains the well-won reputation of

All thoughtful stu-
the distinguished author for scholarship and candor.
on account of its Books of Samuel, on which it is based, but because of the light it throws on and the aid it gives in the general interpretation of The Philadelphia the Scriptures as modified by present-day criticism."
dents of the Scriptures will find the
specific treatment of the
work
helpful, not only
Press.
literary quality of the book deserves mention. We do not usually commentaries for models of English style. But this book has a disIt is delightful reading. tinct, though unobtrusive, literary flavor. The translation is always felicitous, and often renders further comment needless." The Evangelist
"The
go
to
"The
but
treatment
is critical,
and
at the
same time expository.
Conserva-
tive students
much in this volume with which they cannot agree, no one wishing to know the most recent conclusions concerning this
find
may
part of sacred history can afford to be without it"

terian Journal.
Philadelphia Presby-
"The
mend
his
work
author exhibits precisely that scholarly attitude which will comThe Churchman. to the widest audience. "
"The commentary
" The volumes
is
the most complete and minute hitherto published

Literature.
by an English-speaking scholar."
of Driver and
set a high standard for the Old Testament writers but I think Professor Smith's work has reached the same high level. It is scholarly and critical, and yet it is written in a spirit of reverent devotion, a worthy treatment of the sacred text." P*OF. L. W.
;
Moore
Batten, of
P. E. Divinity School* Philadelphia.
gfte %utcx\mtioxml Critical <g0mmeutarg>

We deem it as needfulfor the studious pastor to possess himself of these volumes as to obtain the best dictionary and encyclopedia"
"
The CoNGREGAnoNAUsr.
ST.
By the
Professor of
MARK.
GOULD,
D.D.,
Rev. B. P.
New Testament
Exegesis, P. . Divinity School, Philadelphia.
Crown 8vo.
Net, $3.50.
" In point of scholarship, of accuracy, of originality, this last addition to the worthy of its predecessors, while for terseness and keenness of exegesis, The Congregationalism we should put it first of them all."
series is
that of a thoroughly helpful, instructive critical study of the Word, surpassing anything of the kind ever attempted in the English language, and to students and clergymen knowing the proper use of The Lutheran Quarterly* a commentary it will prove an invaluable aid."
is
"The whole make-up
done his work well and thoroughly. . . The coman admirable example of the critical method at its best . . . The Word study . . shows not only familiarity with all the literature of the subject, but patient, faithful, and independent investigation. ... It will rank among the best, as it is the latest commentary on this basal Gospel." The
*'
Professor Gould has

is
.
mentary
Christian Intelligencer,
"
It will
give the student the vigorously expressed thought of a very thought-
ful scholar."
The Church Standard,
and a credit to Mark is a large success, American scholarship. ... He has undoubtedly given us a commentary on Mark which surpasses all others, a thing we have reason to expect will be true The Biblical in the case of every volume of the series to which it belongs." World.
.
. .
" Dr. Gould's commentary on
"The volume
details
is
and a
fair
degree of caution."
characterized by extensive learning, patient attention to Bibliotheca Sacra,
"The
in
exegetical portion of the
book
.
is
simple in arrangement, admirable
form and condensed in statement. . . Dr. Gould does not slavishly follow any authority, but expresses his own opinions in language both concise and clear." The Chicago Standard.
" In clear, forcible and elegant language the author furnishes the results of the best investigations on the second Gospel, both early and late. He treats Boston Zion's Herald. these various subjects with the hand of a master."
author gives abundant evidence of thorough acquaintance with the history in the case. His treatment of them is always fresh and scbWrly, and oftentimes helpful." The New York Observer,
facts
"The
and
gfrg International @rittcat (tiommcninvq.

"It
is
hardly necessary
to
say that
this series will
stand first
among
all English serial commentaries
on the Bible'*
The Biblical World.
ST.
By
the Rev.
LUKE.
D.D. f
Formerly Fellow and Senior Tutor of
ALFRED PLUHHER,
Master of University College, Durham.
Trinity College, Oxford.
Crown 8vo.
Net, $3.00.
In the author's Critical Introduction to the Commentary is contained a full treatment of a large number of important topics connected with the study of The the Gospel, among which are the following: The Author of the Book
Sources of the Gospel
Style
and
Object and Language The Integrity
Plan of the Gospel

of the
Characteristics,
Gospel The Text
Literary
History.
FROM THE AUTHOR'S PREFACE,

If this
Commentary has any
special features, they will perhaps
be found in
the illustrations from Jewish writings, in the abundance of references to the Septuagint, and to the Acts and other books of the New Testament, in the
frequent quotations of renderings in the Latin versions, and in the attention which has been paid, both in the Introduction and throughout the Notes, to the marks of St. Luke's style.
"It is distinguished throughout by learning, sobriety of judgment, and sound exegesis. It is a weighty contribution to the interpretation of the Third Gospel, and will take an honorable place in the series of which it forms Prof. D. D. Salmon d, in the Critical Review. a part." " We are pleased with the thoroughness and scientific accuracy of the interpretations. ... It seems to us that the prevailing characteristic of the book is common sense, fortified by learning and piety." The Herald and Presbyter, " An important work, which no student of the Word of God can safely neglect." The Church Standard. "The author has both the scholar's knowledge and the scholar's spirit necessary for the preparation of such a commentary. . . We know of nothing on the Third Gospel which more thoroughly meets the wants of the Biblical scholar." The Outlook. " The author is not only a profound scholar, but a chastened and reverent Christian, who undertakes to interpret a Gospel of Christ, so as to show Christ in his grandeur and loveliness of character." The Southern Church-
man.
a valuable and welcome addition to our somewhat scanty stock of commentaries on the Third Gospel. By its scholarly thoroughness it well sustains the reputation which the International Series has already won." Prof. J. H. Thayer, of Harvard University. This volume having been so recently published, further notices are not yet
It is
first-class
"
available.
g&* International
sable?
(Critical
(&ammtutur&.
to
"For the student this new commentary promises The Methodist Recorder.
be indispen-
ROMANS.
By
the Rev.
WILLIAM SANDAY,
AND THB
D.D.,
Lady Margaret
Professor of Divinity,
and Canon of Christ Church, Oxford,
Rev. A. C.
HEADLAH,
M.A.,
Fellow of All Souls' College, Oxford.
Crown 8vo.
Net, $3.00.
"From my knowledge of Dr. Sanday, and from a brief examination of the book, I am led to believe that it is our best critical handbook to the Epistle. It combines great learning with practical and suggestive interpretation." Professor George B. Stevens, of Yale University. ** Professor Sanday is excellent in scholarship, and of unsurpassed candor. The introduction and detached notes are highly interesting and instructive. This commentary cannot fail to render the most valuable assistance to all earnest students. The volume augurs well for the series of which it is a memProfessor George P. Fisher, of Yale University. ber." " The scholarship and spirit of Dr. Sanday give assurance of an interpretation of the Epistle to the Romans which will be both scholarly and spiritual."
The work of the authors has been carefully done, and will prove an acceptable addition to the literature of the great Epistle. The exegesis is acute and learned . . . The authors show much familiarity with the work of their predecessors, and write with calmness and lucidity." New York Observer. " are confident that this commentary will find a place in every thoughtful minister's library. One may not be able to agree with the authors at some points, and this is true of all commentaries, but they have given us a work which cannot but prove valuable to the critical study of Paul's masterly episZton's Advocate. tle." " do not hesitate to commend this as the best commentary on Romans yet written in English. It will do much to popularize this admirable and much needed series, by showing that it is possible to be critical and scholarly and at the same time devout and spiritual, and intelligible to plain Bible readers." The Church Standard. commentary with a very distinct character and purpose of its own, which brings to students and ministers an aid which they cannot obtain elsewhere. . . . There is probably no other commentary in which criticism has been employed so successfully and impartially to bring out the author's AT. Y. Independent. thought." " have nothing but heartiest praise for the weightier matters of the commentary. It is not only critical, but exegetical, expository, doctrinal, practical, and eminently spiritual. The positive conclusions of the books are very numerous and are stoutly, gloriously evangelical. . . . The commentary docs not fail to speak with due utmost reverence of the whole word of God." The ConirtgationaliU
MDr. Lyman Abbott.
We
We
"A
We
$fte International rittcat

-This admirable
series."
ommentarg.
Academy.
The London
EPHESIANS AND COLOSSIANS.

By the
Formerly
Rev. T. K.
ABBOTT,
now
of
B.D., D. Lltt.
Hebrew, Trinity College,
Professor of Biblical Greek,
Dublin.
Crown 8vo.
Net, $2.50.
" The latest volume of this admirable series is informed with the very best spirit in which such work can be carried out a spirit of absolute . This summary . fidelity to the demonstrable truths of critical science. of the results of modern criticism applied to these two Pauline letters is, The Lonfor the use of scholarly students, not likely to be superseded."
don Academy. " An able and independent piece of exegesis, and one
that none of us can It is the work of a man who has made himself masafford to be without. His style is usually His linguistic ability is manifest. ter of his theme. His exegetical perceptions are keen, and we are especially grateful clear. for his strong defence of the integrity and apostolicity of these two great monuments of Pauline teaching." The Expositor.
"It displays every mark of conscientious judgment, wide reading, and grammatical insight. " Literature.
umes
discrimination, learning, and candor, it is the peer of the other vol* The elaborate introductions are of special value." of the series. Professor George B. Stevens, of Yale University.
"In
"It is rich in philological material, clearly arranged, and judiciously handled. The studies of words are uncommonly good. . . the balancing of opinions, in the distinguishing between fine shades of meanThe Church. ing, it is both acute and sound."
.In
" The exegesis based so solidly on the rock foundation of philology is A spiritual and evangelical tenor argumentatively and convincingly strong. pervades the interpretation from first to last. . . . These elements, together with the author's full-orbed vision of the truth, with his discriminative judgment and his felicity of expression, make this the peer of any comThe Standard. mentary on these important letters."
" An exceedingly careful and painstaking piece of work. The introductory discussions of questions bearing on the authenticity and integrity (of the epistles) are clear and candid, and the exposition of the text displays a jVorthwestern Christian Advocate. fine scholarship and insight. "
The book is from first to last exegetical and critical. Every phrase in The authorities for the two Epistles is searched as with lighted candles. variant readings are canvassed but weighed, rather than counted. The multiform ancient and modern interpretations are investigated with the exhaustiveness of a German lecture- room, and the judicial spirit of an English The Con* court-room. Special discussions are numerous and thorough." gregationalisL
0e
^nktruxiiotuxi Crfftwtf
Commentary
M / have already expressed my conviction that the Inter*, national Critical Commentary it the best critical commentary. on the whole Bible, in existence." Dr. Lyman Abbott.
Philippians and Philemon

REV. MARVIN R. VINCENT, D.D.
Professor of Biblical Literature
Union Theological Seminary,
Mn
York,
Crown 8vo, Net

"It
in short, in every
$a.oo.
is,
way worthy
of the series."
The Scotsman.
Professor Vincent's Commentary on Philippians and Philemon appears to me not less admirable for its literary merit than for its scholarship and its clear and discriminating discussions of the contents of these Epistles." Dr. George P. Fisher.
"
"The book contains many examples of independent and judicial weighing of evidence. We have been delighted with the portion devoted to Philemon. Unlike most commentaries, this may wisely be read as a whole." The Congregationalist
41 Of the merits of the work it is enough to say that it is worthy of its place in the noble undertaking to which it belongs. It is ful/ of just such information as the Bible student, lay or clerical, needs and while giving an abundance of the truths of erudition to aid the critical student of the text, it abounds also in that more popular information which enables the attentive reader almost to put himselt in St. Paul's place, to see with the eyes and feel with the heart of the Apostle to the Gentiles." Boston Advertiser.
;
possible in these days to produce a commentary which will be ecclesiastical bias, the feat will be accomplished in It is evident that the writer the International Critical Commentary. has given an immense amount of scholarly research and original thought to The author's introduction to the Epistle to Philemon the subject. . is an admirable piece of literature, calculated to arouse in the student's mind an intense interest in the circumstances which produced this short letter from the inspired Apostle." Commercial Advertiser.
"If
it
is
free
from polemical and
...
" His discussion of Philemon
is
marked by sympathy and appreciation,

The Dial.
It
and
his full discussion of the relations of Pauline Christianity to slavery are
interesting, both historically
and sociologically."
is
" Throughout the work scholarly research by

its
evident.
commends
itself
Lutheran
*'
clear elucidation, its keen exegesis which marks the word study on every page, its compactness of statement and its simplicity of arrangement."
World.
dertaking, that if the
scholarship of the author seems to be fully equal to his i and he has given to us a fine piece of work. One cannot but s entire series shall be executed upon a par with this portion, the! Philadelphia Presbyterian Journal. tle left to be desired."
The
tan be
lit-
$e JntemafioMf Critic*? Commentorg.

'
decided advance on
all
other commentaries." The Outlook,
PROVERBS
By
the Rev.
CRAWFORD
H. TOY, D.D
University,
Professor of Hebrew in
Harvard
Crown 8vo.
"This volume has the same
critical
Net, $3.00.
characteristics of thoroughness
and
painstaking scholarship as the preceding issues of the series.
In the
treatment of the
text, in
noting the various readings and the
force of the
sired."
words
in the original
Hebrew,
it
leaves nothing to be de-
The Christian Intelligencer.

is
volume leaves nothing to be desired. Its from theological prejudice. It will be indispenThe Outlook. sable to the careful student, whether lay or clerical"
interpretation
free
" In careful scholarship this
ST.
PETER AND ST. JUDE

By the Rev. CHARLES BIGG,
D.D.
Net, 3.50.
(Postage, 18c.)
Rector of Fenny Compton, Canon of Christ Churchy and Regius Professor of Ecclesiastical History in the University of Oxford.
Crown 8vo.
This
is
the latest volume of "
tary " which has been published.

expository, exegetical
The The
International Critical
Commenbut
treatment
is
not only
critical,
and practical. The introductions and notes are highly instructive, and thoughtful students of the Scriptures will find this work helpful and suggestive.
" His
commentary
satisfactory."
is
very satisfactory indeed.
His notes are par-
ticularly valuable.
full
We know of no work on these Epistles which is so

The Living Church.
and
"It shows an immense amount of research and acquaintanceship with the views of the critical school." Herald and Presbyter.
" This volume well sustains the reputation achieved by
sors.
its
predeces-
The
notes to the text, as well as the introductions, are marked

at
by erudition
once
affluent
and discriminating."
The Outlook*
XCbe International
XEbeolooical Xibrar^
EDITORS' PREFACE.
Theology
years.
has
made
great
and rapid advances
in recent
New
lines of investigation
have been opened up,
fresh light has

interest,
been cast upon many subjects of the deepest

historical
and the
results.
method has been applied with

for
important
This has prepared the way for a Library
of Theological Science,
It
and has created the demand
it.
has also
made
it
at once
opportune and practicable

in
now
to secure the services of specialists
the different departin
ments of Theology, and to associate them

which
date.
an enterprise
will furnish a record of Theological inquiry
up to
This Library
tian Theology.
is
designed to cover the whole field of Chris-
Each volume
it
is
to be complete in
itself,
while, at the
same time,
will
form part of a carefully

is
planned whole.
One
of the Editors
to prepare a
volume
of Theological Encyclopaedia
which
will give the history
and
literature of each department, as well as of
Theology
as a whole.
The Library
for
is
intended to form a series of Text-Books
Students of Theology.
ness of statement.
The Authors, therefore, aim at conciseness and compactAt the same time, they have in view
editors' preface.
that large and increasing class of students, in other depart-
ments of inquiry, who desire to have a systematic and thor-
ough exposition of Theological Science,

will therefore
Technical matters
be thrown into the form of notes, and the

as readable
text will be
made
is
and attractive as
possible.
The
will
Library
international
and
interconfessional.
It
be conducted
in a catholic spirit,
and
in the interests
of
Theology
Its
as a science.
aim
will
be to give
full
and impartial statements both

and of the questions
of the results of Theological Science
which are
still
at issue in the different departments.
The Authors will be scholars
of recognized reputation in
the several branches of study assigned to them.
They will
be associated with each other and with the Editors in the

effort to
provide a series of volumes which
may adequately
and
indi-
represent the present condition of investigation,

cate the
way
for further progress.
CHARLES STEWART
A.
BRIGGS.
D. F.
SALMOND.
Theological Encyclopedia.
By Charles A. Briggs, D.D., Professor of Biblical Theology,
Union
An
Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament.
By
Theological Seminary, New York. S. R. Driver, D.D., Regius Professor of Hebrew, and Christ Church, Oxford.
Canon
of
(Revised
The Study
ment.
of the Old Testa-
and enlarged edition.) By the Right Rev. Herbert Edward

Ryle, D.D., Lord Bishop of Exeter.
Old Testament History.

Contemporary History of the Old Testament.
By Henry Preserved Smith, D.D.,

late Professor of Biblical History,
Amherst College, Mass. By Francis Brown, D.D., Professor of Hebrew, Union Theological
Seminary,
New
York.
Theology of the Old Testament.
By A.
B. Davidson, D.D., LL.D., Professor of Hebrew, New College,
Edinburgh.
tk
An
ture of the
3nferMtton<if êofogtcaf fetBrdtj.

By
Introduction to the Litera-
New
Testament.
the
S. D. F. Salmond, D.D., Principal of the Free Church College,
Aberdeen.
Canon and Text of

Testament.
New
By Caspar Rene Gregory, D.D.,

LL.D., Professor of New Testament Exegesis in the University of
Leipzig.
The
Life of Christ.
By William Sanday, D.D., LL.D.,

vinity,
Lady Margaret Professor of Diand Canon of Christ Church,
Oxford.
History of Christianity in the Apostolic Age.
By Arthur
Contemporary History of the New Testament.
Theology of the
ment.
New
Testa-
C. McGiffert, D.D., Professor of Church History, Union Theological Seminary, New York. (Now ready.) By Frank C. Porter, Ph.D., Professor of Biblical Theology, Yale University, New Haven, Conn. By George B. Stevens, D.D., Professor of Systematic Theology, Yale University, New Haven, r Conn. (A ow ready.)
The Ancient
The Later
Catholic Church.
By Robert Rainy, D.D., LL.D.,

Principal
of
the
New
ready.)
College,
Edinburgh.
(Now
of
Catholic Church.
By Robert Rainy, D.D., LL.D.,

Principal
the
New
College,
Edinburgh.
The Latin Church.

History of Christian Doctrine.
By Archibald Robertson, D.D.,

Principal of King's College,
By G.
P.
London. Fisher, D.D., LL.D., Proof

Ecclesiastical
fessor
History,
Yale University, New Haven, Conn. (Revised and enlarged edition.)
Christian Institutions.
By A. V. G. Allen, D.D.,
sor of Ecclesiastical E. Divinity School, Mass. (Now ready.)
ProfesHistory, P.
Cambridge,
Philosophy of Religion.
By Robert Flint, D.D., LL.D.,

Professor of Divinity in the University of Edinburgh. By A. B. Bruce, D.D., late Professor of New Testament Exegesis, Free Church College, Glasgow. (Revised and enlarged edition.) By William N. Clarke, D.D., ProSystematic Theology, fessor of Hamilton Theological Seminary. By Newman Smyth, D.D., Pastor of
*
Apologetics.
The Doctrine
of
Gel
Christian Ethics.
Congregational Church,
New Ha-
ven. (Revised and enlarged edition.)
The Christian Pastor and Working Church. The

Christian Preacher.
the
By Washington Gladden, D.D.,

Pastor of Congregational Church,
Columbus, Ohio.
(Now
ready.)
By John Watson, D.D.,

By
Pastor of Presbyterian Church, Liverpool.
Rabbinical Literature.
S. Schechter, M.A., Reader in Talmudic in the University of Cambridge, England.
tM
3nternationdf $eofogicaf
feiBrdtjj.
AN INTRODUCTION TO
The Literature of the Old Testament

By
Prof. S. R.
DRIVER, D.D.
Revised
Canon of Christ Church, Oxford
New Edition
Crown 8vo, 558
pages, $2.50 net
"It is the most scholarly and critical work in the English language on the literature of the Old Testament, and fully up to the present state of research in Germany." Prof. Philip Schaff, D.D.
his material excellently, is succinct without being hurried or unclear, and treats the various critical problems involved with admirable fairness and good judgment." Prof. C. H. Toy.
"
Canon Driver has arranged
"His judgment is singularly fair, calm, unbiassed, and indeThe service, pendent It is also thoroughly reverential. which his book will render in the present confusion of mind on this
.
.
.
great subject, can scarcely be overestimated."
The London Times.
whole, there is probably no book in the English language equal to this Introduction to the Literature of the Old Testament' for the student who desires to understand what the modern criticism Dr. Lyman Abbott, in the Outlook, thinks about the Bible."
*
"As a
"The book
is
ment, reverent in
one worthy of its subject, thorough in its its tone, sympathetic in its estimate, frank
treatin its
recognition of difficulties, conservative (in the best sense of the word) in its statement of results." Prof. Henry P. Smith, in the Magazine of Christian Literature.
" In working out his method our author takes up each book in order and goes through it with marvelous and microscopic care. Every verse, every clause, word by word, is sifted and weighed, and ." its place in the literary organism decided upon The Presbyterian Quarterly.
" It contains just that presentation of the results of Old Testa-, ment criticism for which English readers in this department have been waiting. . . . The whole book is excellent; it will be found, helpful, characterized as it is all through by that scholarly poise of' mind, which, when it does not know, is not ashamed to present de-. grees of probability." New World.
Canon Driver's book is characterized throughout by . thorough Christian scholarship, faithful research, caution in the expression of mere opinions, candor in the statement of facts and of the necessary inferences from them, and the devout recognition of the divine inworking in the religious life of the Hebrews, and of the tokens of divine inspiration in the literature which records and em* bodies it," Dr. A. P. Pkabody, in the Cambridge Tribune.
.
.
0e 3ntemationaf êofosicaf
feiBratg.
THEOLOGY OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.

By QEORQB
R.
STEVENS, D.D.
Professor of Systematic Theology, Yale University.
Crown 8vo, 480
pages, $3.50 net
" In
style
it is
rarely clear, simple,
and strong, adapted
alike to the genit
eral reader
and the theological student.
The former
class will find
readits
able and interesting to an unusual degree, while the student will value
thorough scholarship and completeness of treatment.

plicity,
beauty, and freshness that add greatly to
its
His work has a simscholarly excellence and
worth. "
Christian Advocate,
is
"
Professor Stevens
a profound student and interpreter of the Bible, as
far as possible divested of
any prepossessions concerning
its
message.
In
his study of
ster
it
his object has been not to find texts that
might seem to bol-
writers of the various books
up some system of theological speculation, but meant to say and teach."
to find out
what the
N.
Y.
Tribune*
"It is a fine example of painstaking, discriminating, impartial research and statement." The Congregationalism
" Professor Stevens has

vative,
given us a very good book.
liberal conser-
he takes cautious and moderate positions

admirably fair-minded.
in the field of
New
Testa*
ment
criticism, yet is
His method
differ
thorough.
He
states the opinions of those
who
and from him with care

is
patient
and clearness. The proportion of quotation and reference is well adjusted and the reader is kept well informed concerning the course of opinion withHis out being drawn away from the text of the author* s own thought. judgments on difficult questions are always put with self-restraint and sobriety." The Churchman.
"
It will certainly take its
place, after careful reading, as
a valuable
synopsis, neither bare nor over-elaborate, to which recourse will be had
by
the student or teacher
who
requires within moderate compass the gist of
modern research."
The Literary World.
gfe JnterMtioMf CGeofosicof ftffaug.
THE CHRISTIAN PASTOR AND THE
WORKING CHURCH
By WASHINGTON GLADDEN,
1
D.D., LL.D.
Author of "Applied Christianity/ "Who Wrote the Bible?" "Ruling Ideas of the Preset Age/ etc
Crown
8vo, 485 pages, $j.5o net.
cal
Dr. Gladden may be regarded as an expert and an authority on practiUpon the whole we judge that it will be of great theology.
. .
.
service to the ministry of all the Protestant churches."
The
Interior.
instruction and a profound piety. . . . and judicious from cover to cover. . An ex. ceedingly comprehensive, sagacious, and suggestive study and application The Congregationalism of its theme."
It is pithy, pertinent,
.
" Packed with wisdom and
"
We
have here, for the pastor, the most modern practical
published
sagacious, balanced, devout, inspiring."

We
treatise yet
The Dial.
" His long experience, his eminent success, his rare literary ability, and his diligence as a student combine to make of this a model book for its purknow not where the subjects are more wisely discussed . pose. . The Bibliotheca Sacra. than here."
11 This book should be the vade mecum of every working pastor. It abounds in wise counsels and suggestions, the result of large experience and observation. No sphere of church life or church work is left untreated." The (Canadian) Methodist Magazine and Review.
" A happier combination of author and subject, it will be acknowledged, It is . comprehensive, practical, deeply . can hardly be found. spiritual, and fertile in wise and suggestive thought upon ways and means of bringing the Gospel to bear on the lives of men." The Christian Ad.
vocate.
*' Dr. Gladden writes with pith and point, but with wise moderation, a . . The book is written in an excel. genial tone and great good sense. lent, business-like and vital English style, which carries the author's point and purpose and has an attractive vitality of its own." The Independent.
inspiring, and helpful guide to a busy pastor. One a multitude of practical suggestions for the development of the spiritual and working life of the Church, and the answer to many problems that are a constant perplexity to the faithful minister." The Christian Intelligencer.
finds in
it
-
"
A comprehensive,
"
0e Jnfenuritonaf têofogtcaf
feiBrarg.
A HISTORY OF
CHRISHANITY IN THE APOSTOLIC AGE
V
ARTHUR CUSHMAN McOlFFERT,
Waskbum
Ph.D., D.D.
Professor of Church History in the Union Theological Seminaryt
New
YorIL
Crown
41 The author's work place in the series."
8vo, 681 Pages, $2.50 Net.
is
ably done.
This volume
is
worthy of
its
The Congregationalism
latest critical
" Invaluable as a resume of the

tive period of the Christian
Church."
work upon the great formaThe Christian World (London).
"There can be no doubt that this is a remarkable work, both on account of the thoroughness of its criticism and the boldness of its views.
The Scotsman.
tolic
ability and learning of Professor McGiffert's work on the AposAge, and, whatever dissent there may be from its critical opinion, its manifest sincerity, candid scholars will not fail to appreciate." Dr. George P. Fisher, of Yale University.
" The
" Pre-eminently a clergyman's book but there are many reasons why it should be in the library of every thoughtful Christian person. The style The results rather than the processes of is vivid and at times picturesque. It is full of local color, of striking narrative, and of learning are exhibited. It is an admirable book for the keen, often brilliant, character analysis. Sunday-school teacher." Boston Advertiser,
;
" For a work

with so
of such
many
difficult
markably readable."
wide learning and critical accuracy, and which deals and abstruse problems of Christian history, this is re- * The Independent.
"It is certain that Professor McGiffert's work has set the mark for' future effort in the obscure fields of research into Christian origin."
New York
Tribune.
" Dr. McGiffert has produced an

structive work.
able, scholarly, suggestive,
and con-
thorough and easy possession of his sources and* materials, so that his positive construction is seldom interrupted by citations, the demolition of opposing views, or the irrelevant discussion of subordinate questions." The Methodist Review.
is
He
in
"The
clearness, self -consistency,
and force of the whole impression of

leave this book, goes far to guarantee
Apostolic Christianity with which its permanent value and success."
we
The Expositor.
History of Christian Doctrine.

BY
GEORGE
Titos Street Professor
off
P.
FISHER,
D.D.,
Ecclesiastical History In Yale University.
Crown
14
8vo, 583 pages, $2.50 net.
He gives ample proof of rare scholarship. Many of the old docit
trines are restated with
which make
a freshness, lucidity and elegance of style a very readable book." The New York Observer.
. .
modern literature
pendent.
volume is worthy of a foremost place in our We have no work on the subject in English equal to it, for variety and range, clearness of statement, judicious guidance, and catholicity of tone." London Nonconformist and Inde"Intrinsically this
.
" It is only just to say that Dr. Fisher has produced the best HisThe New Yotk Evangelist tory of Doctrine that we have in English."
to me quite a marvel how a book of this kind (Fisher's History of Christian Doctrine') can be written so accurately to
"It
is
scale.
It could only
be done by one
mand
41
of all the periods.'*

It presents so
Prof. William San day,

fresh points
who had a very complete comOxford.
treated,
is so thoroughly into view contemporaneous thought, especially the American, that it is a pleasure to read it, and will be an equal pleasure to go back to it again and again." Bishop John F. Hurst.
many new and
and
and brings
11
tion, spirit
Throughout there is manifest wide reading, careful preparaand good judgment," Philadelphia Presbyterian.
"
.
.
.
The language and
A book which will be found both stimulating and instructive

The Churchman.
style are alike delightfully fresh
and easy
to the student of theology."

11
Professor Fisher has trained the public to expect the excellen cies of scholarship, candor, judicial equipoise and admirable lucidity and elegance of style in whatever comes from his pen. But in the present work he has surpassed himself." Prof. J. H. Thayer, o/
Harvard Divinity
School*
" It meets the severest standard; there is fullness of knowledge, thorough research, keenly analytic thought, and rarest enrichment for a positive, profound and learned critic. There is interpretative and revealing sympathy. It is of the class of works that mark epochs in their several departments." The Outlook.
study of the History of Doctrine, Professor Fisher's volume has the merit of being full, accurate and interesting."
first
"
As a
Prof. Marcus Dods
"
He gathers up,
reorganizes and presents the results of
investigation in a style rarely full of literary charm."
The Interior.
"
$e Jnfetnafiondf tGeofosicdf
fetBrdtg.
Christian Ethics,
By
NEWMAN SMYTH,
Crown
D.D.,
New
Haven.
8vo, 508' pages, $2.50 net.
" As this book is the latest, so it is the fullest and most attractive treatment of the subject that we are familiar with. Patient and exhaustive in its method of inquiry, and stimulating and suggestive in the topic it handles, we are confident that it will be a help to the task of the moral understanding and interpretation of human life." The Living Church,
" This book of Dr. Newman Smyth is of extraordinary interest and It is an honor to American scholarship and American Chrisvalue. It is a work which has been wrought out with retian thinking. markable grasp of conception, and power of just analysis, fullness of information, richness of thought, and affluence of apt and luminous
Its style is singularly clear, simple, facile, and strong. gratification can hardly be expressed at the way the author lifts the whole subject of ethics up out of the slough of mere naturalism into its own place, where it is seen to be illumined by the ChrisThe Advance. tian revelation and vision."
illustration.
Too much
subjects treated cover the whole field of moral and spiritual reand practical, natural and revealed, individual and social, To enthrone the personal Christ as the true contenf civil and ecclesiastical. of the ethical ideal, to show how this ideal is realized in Christian consciousness and how applied in the varied departments of practical life these are the main objects of the book and no objects could be loftier."
'
The
lations, theoretical
The Congregationalist
" The author has

insight,
and
in
written with competent knowledge, with great spiritual a tone of devoutness and reverence worthy of his theme.
The London Independent
methodical, comprehensive, and readable ; few subdivisions, are omitted in the treatment of the broad theme, and though it aims to be an exhaustive treatise, and not a popular handbook, it may be perused at random with a good deal of suggestiveness and profit." The Sunday School Times.
It
is
"
direct or indirect,
" It reflects great credit on the author, presenting an exemplary temper and manner throughout, being a model of clearness in thought and term, and containing passages of exquisite finish." Hartford Seminary Record.
*
%
We
Co ministers,
commend this book to all reading, intelligent men, and who will find in it many fresh suggestions."
especially
Professor A.
B.
Bruce.
CHRISTIAN INSTITUTIONS.
By ALEXANDER V. Q. ALLEN, D.D.
Professor of Ecclesiastical History in the Episcopal Theological School
in Cambridge.
Crown 8vo, 577
pages, $2.50 net.
" Professor Allen's Christian Institutions may be regarded as the most important permanent contribution which the Protestant Episcopal Church of the United States has yet made to general theological thought. In a few particulars it will not command the universal, or even the general assent of but it will receive, as it deserves, the respect and discriminating readers appreciation of those who rightly estimate the varied, learned, and independThe American Journal of Theology. ent spirit of the author."
;
critical,
to his method there can be no two opinions, nor as to the broad, and appreciative character of his study. It is an immensely sugIt shows that modern gestive, stimulating, and encouraging piece of work. scholarship is not all at sea as to results, and it presents a worthy view of a The Ingreat and noble subject, the greatest and noblest of all subjects."
" As
dependent.
"This will at once take its place among the most valuable volumes in the International Theological Library,' constituting in itself a very complete epitome both of general church history and of the history of doctrines. single quotation well illustrates the brilliant style and the pro. . . The Bibliotheca Sacra. found thought of the book."
1
"The wealth of learning, the historical spirit, the philosophic grasp, the loyalty to the continuity of life, which everywhere characterize this thorough study of the organization, creeds, and cultus constituting Christian InstituHowever the reader may differ with the conclusions of the tion. . . . author, few will question his painstaking scholarship, judicial temperament, and catholicity of Christian spirit." The Advance.
' It is an honor to American scholarship, and will be read by wish to be abreast of the age." The Lutheran Church Review.
all
who
gestive
" With all its defects and book on a subject
limitations, this
is
of abiding interest."
a most illuminating and sugThe Christian Intelli-
gencer."
" It is a treasury of expert knowledge, arranged in an orderly and lucid manner, and more than ordinarily readable. . . It is controlled by the candid and critical spirit of the careful historian who, of course, has his convictions and preferences, but who makes no claims in their behalf which The Congregationalism the facts do not seem to warrant."
.
" He writes in a charming style, and has collected a vast amount of important material pertaining to his subject which can be found in no other work in so compact a form." The New York Observer.
0e Jnfernafiondf tôfogtcaf
feiBratj.
Apologetics;
Or, Christianity Defensively Stated.
By ALEXANDER BALMAIN BRUCE,

Professor of Apologetics and
D.D.,
Glasgow
Author
of " The Training of the Twelve," " The Humiliation of Christ,'* The Kingdom of God," etc.
New Testament
Exegesis, Free Church College,
Crown
8vo, 528 pages, $2.50 net
Professor Bruce's work is not an abstract treatise on apologetics, but an apologetic presentation of the Christian faith, with reference to whatever in our intellectual environment makes faith difficult at
the present time.
men whose sympathies are with Christianity, the burning questions timics of pressing concern of the hour. It is offered as an aid to faith rather than a buttress of received belief and an armory of weapons for the orthodox believer.
It
addresses
itself to
and discusses the
' The book throughout exhibits the methods and the results of conscientious, independent, expert and devout Biblical scholarship, and it is of permanent value." 7Vie Congregationalist.
'The practical value of this book entitles The Independent. first rank."
it
to
a place
in the
11 patient and scholarly presentation of Christianity under aspects best fitted to commend it to 'ingenuous and truth-loving minds.' " The Nation.
"The book is well-nigh indispensable to those who propose to keep abreast of the times." Western Christian Advocate.
"Professor Bruce does not consciously evade any difficulty, For this to be completely fair-minded. reason he wins from the start the strong confidence of the reader."
and he constantly aims

Advance.
" Its admirable spirit, no less than the strength of its arguments, go far to remove many of the prejudices or doubts of those who are outside of Christianity, but who are, nevertheless, not infidels. "
will
New
York Tribune.
'
In a word, he tells precisely what all intelligent persons wish to know, and tells it in a clear, fresh and convincing manner. Scarcely anyone has so successfully rendered the service of showing what the result of the higher criticism is for the proper understanding of
the history
and
religion of Israel."
for
.
A ndoi>er Review.
a long time taken a book in hand that is more Without commenting further, we repeat . stimulating to faith. that this volume is the ablest, most scholarly, most advanced, and sharpest defence of Christianity that has ever been written. No theological library should be without it." Zion s Herald.
"
We
have not
Stanford University Li brarics Stanford, Calif orn ia

Return this book on or before date due.
mr
-1
m*

The Epistles To The Ephesians and To The Colossians T. K. Abbott

Hochgeladen von

Dokumentinformationen

Originaltitel

Copyright

Verfügbare Formate

Dieses Dokument teilen

Dokument teilen oder einbetten

Freigabeoptionen

Stufen Sie dieses Dokument als nützlich ein?

Sind diese Inhalte unangemessen?

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

The Epistles To The Ephesians and To The Colossians T. K. Abbott

Hochgeladen von

Copyright:

Verfügbare Formate

This

library shelves before

books discoverable online.

term has expired. Whether a book

are our gateways to the past, representing a wealth of history, culture

that's often difficult to discover.

a reminder of this book's long journey

to partner with libraries to digitize public

are merely their custodians. Nevertheless, this

prevent abuse by commercial parties,

also ask that you:

+ Make non-commercial use of the files

request that you use these

additional materials through

for informing people about this project

and helping them find

not assume that just

also in the public

About Google Book Search

organize the world's information and to

http //books google com/|

CHARLES AUGUSTUS BRIGGS,

Fdmmtd Retfnmm Prefesr 0/ Bibticmi

SAMUEL ROLLES DRIVER.

Megim Prefeoer mf Hekrem, Ox/erd;

Several of these have been translated, edited,

some cases enlarged and adapted,

others are in process of translation.

has hitherto been* produced.

The way has been prepared

Lightfoot, Ferowne, Westcott, and others

and the time has

judgment of the projectors of this enterprise, to combine British and American

that will be abreast of

Messrs. Charles Scribner's Sons of

York, and Messrs.

T. Clark of Edinburgh, propose to publish such a

Commentaries on the Old and

Alfred Plummer, D.D.

be international and inter-conecclesiastical

be free from polemical and

be based upon a thorough

the original texts of the Bible, and upon critical methods of

They are designed

chiefly for students

clergymen, and will be written in a compact style.

details of criticism will

proper place in the body of the Commentary.

section of the Text will be

introduced with a paraphrase,

Technical details of textual and

philological criticism will, as

a more general character ment the exegetical note* will be arranged, as

be kept distinct from and in the Old Testafar

be serviceable to students not acquainted

be dealt with, when necessary,

with critical notices

the most important literature of

well as questions of Biblical Theology, are included in the

plan of the Commentaries, but not Practical or Homiletical

Scholars are engaged

Volumes named below:

THE OLD TESTAMENT.